P-*^  ■.-•K^ 


m 


,V''*m7^ 


^ 


2i«     "  }^J 


1 


'  BAP 

if 51 5. 


%^ 


Co 


?1 1 


1 

<^                        PRINCETON,    N.    J.                         <f^ 

Presented  by  Mr  Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Agiicic  Coll.  on  Baptism,  No. jSCZ-S^^C^ 

/? 


# 


I 


-''^ 


s. 


AS 


I 


t 


fXi^.^y^^ 


c 


at^* 


Av;% 


\^ 


V 
Q 

<? 


i    fuv,  Ur>,  <;v/ial3  (i.^l-Jte  "f^;  *^''^.ftY.^,' 

jUti^     <tk^      .^f^    ^-.r-i^-.         «^      .  ^^     ^.tnr:^ 


•^'•tt.   e.^^  0^-^*^    '    f^;   ,,U,fa^-^' t*" 


ANSWER 


TO 


Mr.  JOSEPH  MOORE,  THE  METHODIST; 


<t^ITa  A  FEtIf 


FRAGMENTS  ON  THE  DOCTRIN0 


DV 


JUSTIFICATION, 


By  DAVID  AenkFL, 
ItottCT  of  the  Evangelic  Luthci  an  Chu-  rh,  t  eniatng  in  lAncotn  eitunfy,  y.  C. 

NEW  MAKKET,  Va, 

f&lIiTED  IN  9.  B£MCEl'»  OFFicfij  fiV  9.  G.  B£l^&EIri 


PREFACE. 


A  few  years  past,  a  treatise  on  holy  baptism,  en- 
titled "  Heavenly  flood  of  regeneration, "  written  by 
myself,  was  published.  It  contains  some  of  the  viewB 
of  Lutherans,  on  that  subject,  without  once  naming 
the  Methodist  sect ;  hence  without  intending  any  con- 
troversy. Notwithstanding,  one  of  their  preachers  .• 
viz.  Joseph  Moore,  with  whom  I  have  no  personal 
acquaintance,  attacked  said  treatise  in  a  series  of 
Strictures,  in  which  he  attempts  to  prove  the  doctrine^ 
contained  in  my  treatise,  as  erroneous  and  dangerous. 
Mr.  Moore,  being  the  aggressor,  no  generous  person, 
it  is  hoped,  will  attach  any  blame  to  me,  when  I  stand 

in  m^  PX^n  dffep^^v\%\  v     .      » 

.  THE  AUTHOE. 

Writttn  in  Jefferson  counftfi^ 
KENTUCKY, 
m  the  month  of  June,  1%VS, 


3  ^^^    ■ 

SECTION  I. 

Jtt  i«  ihewn  how  Mr.  Moore  attempts  to  impress  the  minds  of  the  readt^ 
with  the  idea,  that  I  teach  in  my  treatise,  that  baptism  ia  regeneration  iV 
self;  but  this  statement  is  fa  se. 

Mr  Joseph  Moore  in  the  preface  to  his  strictures  on  my 
treatise,  sa^s,  that  "  to  every  niiOrmed  and  unprejudiced  mind 
it  carried  us  own  con  lemiiati;<n  "  It"  this  be  correct,  what 
need  had  he,  to  misrepreseni  thevioctrinis  contained  inh,  tor 
the  purpose  oi  giving  them  a  retutalioii  ?  A  simpie  review  of 
them,  in  their  original  cotours,  v\ould  have  sufficed,  to  convince 
informed  minds  oi  their  supposed  luti'it} .  He  on  the  hi  st  page, 
states,  that  I  say,  baptism  is  reaeneratiun  ;  and  frequently  as- 
serts the  same,  in  many  other  passages ;  and  vehemently  la- 
bours to  prove  that  baptism  cannot  be  regeneration ;  which 
tends  to  make  my  treatise  a])p.  ar  ledicukms.  But  neither  Mr, 
M.  nor  any  other  person  ever  saw  in  it,  unless  it  was  in  a  be- 
wildered imaginatj.n,  that  bap  ism  was  regeneration  He  no 
where  pointed  ut  the  page,  where  I  call  it  so  :  tor  this  obvious 
reason  ;  because  he  could  not  1  call  baptism,  ihe  ordinary 
means  of  regeneration  .•  but  who  does  not  perceive  the  pa'pa» 
ble  dilierence,  between  the  means  of,  and  regeneration  itsell  ? 
In  order  to  give  it  the  appeaiance,as  if  I  taught, that  baptism 
was  regeneration,  he  in  a  clandestine  manner  assert^,  that  I 
say:  *'  baptism  is  regeneration,  or  a  heavenly  tiond  ot  regener-  - 
ation  "  Why  is  the  expletive  conjunction  Ovj  here  introduced  ? 
This  is  to  insinuate,  that  a  heavenly  flood  ofregen«  ration  is  the 
same  as  regeneration  itself  This  betrays  either  ignorance,  or 
else  Wilful  perversion.  The  rules  of  grammar  ought  to  teach 
any  common  eng  ish  scholar,  that  a  flood  of  regeneration,  is 
not  the  same  as  regeneration  itself.  When  I  say,  **  the  mother 
of  a  child,"  any  person  may  know,  that  1  do  not  mean,  that 
the  mother  is  the  child.  "  F'ood  of  regeneration,"  is  a  similar 
phrase,  is  parsed  in  the  same  manner ;  ad  implies  nothing 
more  than  a  flood,  which  as  a  means,  is  to  effect  regeneration. 
Had  I  in  any  passage  of  my  treatise,  as  Mr.  M.  erroneously 
asserts,  said,  that  baptism  was  regener.;tion,  he  could  not  only 
have  proved  it  unscriptural ;  but  also  ludicrous  A  man  who 
is  regenerated,  is  a  new  creature  ;  hence  it  would  be  absurd,  to 
call  baptism  the  new  ereatnre.  With  equal  propriety  it  may  be 
said,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not  the  new  birth ;  for  the  new 
creature  is  not  the  Holy  Ghost  himself.  But  how  congenial 
to  orthodoxy!  when  we  say  :  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  cause,  and 
regeaeratioQ  the  e£fect»    Or^  to  make  the  order  replete ;  iht 


4 

Holy  Ghosf  is  the  cause,  baptism  by  which  he  operates  the 
means,  and  regciieiation  the  etiect.  Correct  reasonei s  lu  ver 
blend  the  cause  and  eft'ect  together,  so  as  to  make  them  the 
same  thing 

As  ludicrous  as  Mr.  M.  would  have  rendered  my  treatise, 
provided,  he  could  have  pruven.  that  I  taught  baptism,  was  re- 
generation, even  so  ahsui  d  i>-  what  he  says,  page  6  in  his  stric- 
tures :  "  Thus  we  are  born  again  tVoni  above,  by  a  spiritual 
biith  ;  not  of  corruptible  things;  such  as  silver  and  gild  (nor 
by  the  natural  water  in  baptism)  but  by  the  precious  blood  of 
Christ— the  word  and  spirit  of  God."  I  Pet  1.  18,  19,  2H-  A- 
greeable  to  this,  we  are  born  again  by  a  spiritual  birth,  and  in 
the  meanwhile,  by  the  precious  b'ood  of  Christ,  the  word  and 
spirit  of  G>>d  ;  which  makes  the  spiritual  bii  ih,  and  the  blood 
of  Christ,  &e.  the  same  thing.  Now,  who  can  believe,  that 
the  blood  of  Christ,  the  word  and  spirit  ot  God,  are  the  spiritu- 
al birth  ?  Had  Mr.  M.  reasoned  correctly,  he  would  not  have 
said,  th.it  we  are  born  again  by  a  spiritual  birth — and  then  add  : 
by  the  precious  blood  o-  Christ,  the  word  and  spirit  of  God, 
thereby  making  the  former  and  'atter  synonimous  ;  but  like  a 
man  of  sound  logick,  he  wou  d  have  said  :  the  blood  of  Christ 
is  the  meritorious,  and  the  spirit,  the  applying  cause  ;  and 
the  spiritual  birth  the  effect.  Again,  to  be  born,  as  Mr  M. 
says,  by  a  spiritual  birth  is  out  oi  the  question  ;  for  the  spiritu- 
al biith  is  the  act  of  brhiging  the  spiritual  child  into  life  ;  hence 
to  be  born  by  a  birth,  is  thi-  same  as  to  say,  to  be  bom  by  be- 
ing born;  which  is  nonsense.  Is  it  possible,  that  he  does  not 
understand  the  rudiments  of  language  better,  than  to  say  we  are 
born  by  a  birth  !! 

It  is  not  necessary  to  review  all  the  arguments,  Mr.  M  pro. 
duces  to  prove,  that  baptism  is  not  regeneration  ;  as  1  know  of 
no  person,  who  pretends  to  assert  the  contrary  ;  and  in  partic- 
ular  nothing  of  the  kind  is  to  be  found  in  my  treatise ;  hence  he 
labouring  to  prove,  that  baptism  is  not  regeneration  ;  is  a'l  the 
while,  'ike  a  war  like  hero,  fightmg  his  own  shadow.  Why 
does  he  attempt,  to  impress  his  readers,  with  the  false  idea,  that 
I  teach  baptism  is  rtgeneration  ?  Is  he  no  scholar  ?  Does  he 
as  a  christian,  and  a  Methodist  minister,  not  venerate  the  truth  ? 
He  must,  in  the  very  commencement,  have  despaired  of  his 
pretended  refutation  ;  otherwise  he  would  not  have  taken  his 
reiuae  to  a  glaring  falsehood  :  by  saying,  that  I  teach,  baptism 
is  regeneration  J  Did  he  think,  that  his  readers,  were  so  ig. 
norant,  that  they  could  not  perceive  the  difference,  betwet^ik 
the  means  of,  and  regeneration  itself  ? 


SECTION  II. 

Mr.  Moere  charges  the  doctiine  of  consubstantiatio«  tipon  the  LuthejTDa 
church  ;  an  :  asserts,  that  upon  this  ground  1  maintain mv  views  with  res* 
pect  to  baptism.  All  this  is  shown  to  be  groundless.  His  argument 
Icaiis  to  a  denial  of  the  influence  ot  the  Hoi^  Spiiit,  &.C. 

Mr.  Moore  (page  21,  22|  is  very  careful,  tn  shew  his  readers 
the  meaning  o;'  the  word  consubstantiatii.n.  He  defines  ii  ii  cm 
Jolinson's,  Bailey's  and  Entu  k's  (lictionarifs,  to  be  ot  the  same 
substance,  kind  or  nature  ;  existencs  oi  mote  than  <  ne  in  th& 
same  substance,  &c.  He  then  procetds:  "  Ft  on.  the  above 
definitions  it  appears,  that  consub&tantiaticn  is  the  ccrnecting 
and  un  ting  two  natures,  beings,  or  things  together,  so  as  to 
form  one  ;  or  so  a-^  to  exist  together  as  une.  Hence  Luther 
taught,  that  the  body  and  b'ood  oi  Christ  vv^ere  united  to  the 
bread  and  Wine,  in  the  eucharist,  so  as  to  b»:come  one  sub- 
stance, or  to  exist  together  as  one.  Therefore  when  ihey  par- 
took of  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  they  actual- 
ly ate  and  drank  the  body  and  blcod  of  Christ,  This  ditiers 
but  very  litth  from  the  papish  doctrine  of  transubstantiat  on.'^ 
And  then  page  28,  he  says  •  '•  This  is  ihe  way  that  Air  H.  has 
proven  that  water  baptism  is  a  heavenly  flood  ot  reg(  nt  i  ation, 
1.  e.  by  connecting  and  joining  to  it,  the  word,  the  spirit,  and 
the  name  of  God  ;  which,  he  says,  's  God  himseil.  lie  there- 
by makes  water-baptism  one  with  these, — possessing  the  same 
properties  and  regenerating  qualities  that  the  VNor(i,ihe  spiiit, 
and  that  God  himself  posse'^ses.  This  certainly  is  const. bs«tan- 
tiation.  Because  the  water  in  baptism  is  made  one  vs  ith  all 
these,  and  exist  together  as  one,  possessing  the  properties  ajid 
healing  virtues  that  they  possess.  There  ore  whtn  th  vAatrr 
in  baptism  is  applied  to  the  person,  the  graces  oi  the  v\orc!  and 
spirit,  and  the  communicable  perlections  ol  God^arc  eonve^ed 
with  it  to  the  soul.  And  if  this  he  the  case,  nd  wonder  that 
water  baptism  should  be  a  heavenly  flood  of  regenerat  on.  or 
the  ordinary  means  by  which  people  are  regenerated.''  He 
also  quoted  sundry  passages  from  my  tieatise,  which  speak  of 
a  connection  between  the  word  of  God,  and  the  water  in  bap- 
tism ;  from  which  he  very  confidently  in  ersconsubsiantiaticn. 

Answer:  Mr.  M.  says:  *' Hence  Luther  taught,  that  the  bo- 
dy  and  blood  of  Chri-t  w  ere  united  to  the  bread  and  wine,  m 
the  eu'harist,  so  as  to  become  one  substance.  &c."  The  v>  oi  d 
hence,  presupposes  a  reason.  What  is  the  reason,  thnt  Luther 
taug'it  this  doctrine?  Mr.  M.  assigns  this  as  a  reason  ;  that, 
'^oonsubstantiation  is  the  conuecting  and  uniting  tw  o  natures, 


feeings  or  thing^s  tosrether,  so  as  to  'brm  one,  &c,  ^'henct^  Lu- 
ther t  laght,  &c  This  is  no  evidence,  that  Luther  taught,  ihe 
<iocti-ai3  oi"  consubstuutsation  ;  because  it  means  the  joining  of 
two  things  together,  so  as  to  become  one  I  might  uith  as 
mdch  p -opri'ty  argue;  the  word  transabstantiation,  signifies, 
the  hangeof  one  substance  into  another;  hence  Mr.  M.  leach- 
es this  doctrine.  Bat  the  truth  is,  it  does  not  matter  what  con- 
Siibstantlation  and  transubstantiaton  signify  ;  for  it  does  not 
prove  that  L  i  her  taught  the  former,  nor  Mr.  M.  the  latter* 
If  M  •.  M  .V  ml  I  p  ove,  that  Luther  taught  consubstantiation, 
he  mast  resort  to  better  evidence,  it  there  be  any.  He,  by  im. 
poking  the  doctrine  of  consubstantiation,  upon  the  Lutheran 
ch  ii-ch,  and  my  treatise,  has  adopted  the  best  method  in  his 
po  ver,  to  ren  1  r  th  tn  both  objects  of  ridicule  ;  and  to  obtain 
a  datum,  on  which  to  found  his  conelusions  Consubstantia- 
tion, relative  to  the  sacraments  of  the  church,  is  a  glaring  er- 
ror: for  if  the  Lor  I's  body  atid  blood  are  incorporated  with 
bi'ead  an  1  wine,  so  as  to  becotne  one  with  them  ;  then  indeed^ 
these  elements  would  participate  aU  the  divine  perfections  ofc' 
the  L)rd  ;  it  wou  d  be  similar  to  God's  incarnation  ;  and  they 
woul  1  become  obj  els  of  worsliip.  The  same  may  be  said 
with  respect  to  the  Holy  G";io-,t ,  and  water  in  baptism.  Now, 
who  among  protestants,  does  not  know,  that  such  a  doctrine  is 
fraught  with  idolatry  ?  1  will  not  dispute  the  definition,  he 
has  g  ven  of  consubstantiation  ;  nor  the  affinity  he  speaks  of, 
t'lat  it  b  -ars  to  transubstantiation.  Although,  in  the  nature  of 
things,  there  is  a  different^e.  But,  that  Lu  he.  taught  consub- 
stantiation, and  that  the  same  idea  is  exhibited  in  my  treatise, 
leann  >t  forbear,  but  to  say,  is  a  positive  falsehood,  I  know 
tliat  Ml'.  Charles  Buck,  in  his  theological  dictionary,  asserts 
that  L'thr  taught  this  dortrine  ;  which  leads  some  honest 
men  into  an  error.  Buck,  in  this  instance  shows  himself,  'ike 
a  very  ignorant  man.  The  liUtheran  doctrines,  have  been 
liitherto,  principary  extant  in  the  German  language.  In  all 
probability  Buck,  knew  as  much  of  the  German,  as  Mr.  M. 
Th.^y  b  )th  being  extremely  ignorant  in  this  language,  they 
without  hesitation,  slander  the  Lutheran  community  ;  and  cause 
other  ign oranl  p  rsons  to  blaspheme,  who  like  Paul,  before  his 
conversion,  think  they  are  doing  God  a  service.  I  shall  here 
tr  msliite  the  lOlh  artic'e  of  the  Augustan  confession,  the  creed 
of  Lutherans,  which  will  shew  for  itself:  viz 

*'0*'the  Lord's  supper,  we  teach  thus  .  that  the  true  body 
and  blood  of  Christ,  are  truly  present,  administered,  and  re- 
ceived in  the  Lord's  supper,  under  the  figure  of  bread  ao^ 
■^ino    wherefore  tho  contrary  dectrine  is  rejected.'* 


There  is  a  rnanifest  difference,  between  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  being  present,  aiul  adniiiiifetf rt(i  ii.fUr  the  t  gnu  of 
bread  and  wine  ;  and  thi-  bod)  and  bldod  uniting  to  bicad  and 
wine,  so  as  to  become  one  with  them,  or  to  be  incoipniated, 
Wliere  did  Mr.  M.  fver  see  in  the  Lniheran  creed,  that  Christ 
became  o/ze  w  ith  bread  and  w  inc  ?  Ot  in  n.y  treatise,  that  the 
Holy  Ghost,  was  connected  with  I  he  water,  so  as  to  becone 
one  with  the  same  ?  It  is  true,  I  said, the}  were  con^iecied  ; 
but  Mr.  M.  slyiy  slips  in,  "So  as  to  become  one  ;"  as  i^  to  be 
connected,  and  to  becone  one,  were  synoninious.  W  ho  au- 
thorised hin;,  to  add  to  n  y  wi  rds,  "So  as  to  becon  e  one  r''^ 
There  is  a  considerable  difterence  between,  a  thing,  beir.gcon- 
nected  w  ith  another  ;  and  becoming  one  w  ith  it;  as,  lor  instance, 
the  ocean  is  coi  nected  with  the  ( ontinent;  but  is  not  beccnu  one 
th  ng  with  it ;  whereas  the  Son  of  Cod  was  made  flesh, and  is 
thereby  not  simply  connected  w  ith,  but  is  also  in  reality  beccme 
one  w  ith  the  same.  Lest  any  person  should  be  at  a  loss  to 
know,  what  manner  of  connection  i  alluded  to,  I  called  w  ater 
in  baptism,  a  vehicle  of  the  command  of  Christ,  and  the  nan  e 
of  the  holy  Trinity.  Mr.  M.  himself,  informs  U'-jO'i  the  signi- 
fication of  a  vehicle ;  viz.  "  a  conduct,  p  pe,  tube,  gutter,  &c. 
by  which  water  or  any  liquid  is  conveyed  to  any  p  ace.  Also 
any  kind  of  carriage,  or  vessel  for  the  purpose  of  con\  eying  any 
thing  from  place  to  place."  page  16.  I  acknowledge  the  cor- 
rectness of  this  definition.  Now,  I  hope,  he  will  understand, 
that  a  vehicle  is  not  consubstantiated,  (nor  is  it  become  one) 
with  the  thing  it  conveys.  For  instance,  a  man  riding  in  his 
coach,  it  is  the  vehicle  to  convey  him  ;  but  who  would  conclude; 
because  he  is  connected  with  the  coach,  that  therefore,  he  has 
become  one  substance  with  it?  Or,  that,  because  he  rides  in 
it ;  therefore  it  becomes  rational,  like  himself  ?  Or,  a  chalice 
contains  wine  ;  hence  its  vehicle  ;  thet  elore  the  chal.ce  has  be- 
come one  thing  with  the  wine  ?  No  man  of  a  sound  mind, 
would  diaw  any  such  conclusions.  Neither  w ould he  call  the 
coach,  an  emblem  of  the  man  ;  but  the  coach  is  simply  a 
coach,  no  matter  whosoever  may  ride  in  it  Now,  if  water  in 
baptism,  is  a  vehicle  of  the  spirit ;  then  the  water  is  no  more 
to  the  spirit,  than  the  coach  is  to  the  man,  who  rides  in  it.  E- 
qually  so,  bread  &  wine,  in  the  eucharist  are  vehicles  of  the  bo- 
dy and  blood  of  Christ ;  as  the  Augustan  concession  saith  :  they 
are  present,  administered,  and  received  under  the  figure 
(not  consubstantiated)  of  bread  and  wine.  Where  in  all  this, 
is  there  any  idea  of  consubstantiation  ? 

Moses  informs  us,  "  that  the  Lord  appeared  unto  him  in  & 
flame  Oi  fire  out  of  the  midst  of  a  bubh,"  Exod.  2,  'i.    Again 


8 

be  says:  "the  Lord  descened  in  the  cloud,  and  stood  with 
him  tliere,  &c."  ch.  34,  5.  Ii  is  a  wender,  that  Mr  >i.  does 
not  also,  impeach  Moses  with  the  doctrine  o!  consubstantiation; 
and  thus  make  him  a  half  bi  other  to  the  p-.pe  ;  ior  i:^  oses  as- 
serts, that  the  Lord  appeared  in  a  burning  bush,  and  in  a 
cloud.  He  might  easily  convict  Moses  ot  this  doc"rine,by  sly- 
ly slipping  in  :  ''  the  L/Ord  has  becoire  one  wi.h  the  burniiig 
bush  and  the  cloud  "  From  these  passages  of  scripture,  it  is 
evident,  that  the  Lord  employed  ihe  burning  bish  unti  the 
cloud,  as  mediums,  through  which,  to  negociate  with  his  ser- 
vant Moses,  without  being  consubstantiuted  with  thtm.  The 
Lord  is  also  said  to  '^  make  the  clouds  his  chaiiot,  and  to 
walk  upon  the  wings  of  the  wind."  Ps.  104.  3.  If  the  cUmds 
be  his  chariot,  they  are  also  his  vehicle.  Could  the  inspired 
writer  with  p  opriety  say,  that  the  c  ouds  are  the  chariot,  on 
which  the  Lord  rides,  without  involving  the  idea  oi  consub- 
stantiation ;  where  can  be  the  inconsistency  when  1  call  water 
in  baptism,  and  the  elements  in  the  euchar  st,  the  blessed 
clouds  in  which  God  descends  to  act  and  commune  ^^ith  sin- 
ners? This  is  figuratively^  what  I  called  literally,  a  vehicle 
in  my  treatise. 

Was  it  not  sufficient,  to  inform  Mr.  M.  that  I  meant  no 
consubstantiation,  when  I  called  water  a  vehicle  o!  God's  name 
and  Spirit.  This  clue  ought  to  have  induced  him,  as  an  htn- 
est  and  correct  logician,  to  view  all  my  expressions,  relative 
to  the  connection  between  the  spirit  and  the  water  in  the  same 
light.  Hence  it  is  not  necessary,  to  examine  all  the  passages 
he  has  quoted  from  my  treatise,  to  prove  that  I  n)aintain  con. 
substantiation  ;  as  all  the  phrases  in  it,  relative  to  the  C(*nn._c- 
tion  between  the  water  and  the  spirit,  are  sufficiently  qualified 
in  their  meaning,  by  calling  the  former  a  vehicle  ot  the  latter* 
"Now,  Mr.  M  can  answer  his  own  questions :  "  Whether 
the  water  changes  from  its  natural  elementary  state  into  the 
spirit?  Or  whether  the  Holy  Spirit  changes  fiom  hi?  pure 
and  spiritual,  into  the  natural  state  of  the  elementaiy  vater  ?" 
page  31.  As  the  doctrine  of  consubstantiation  is  not  to  be 
found  in  my  treatise  ;  hence  his  questions  are  impertinent. 

He  also  censures  a  phrase,  which  I  quoted  trom  Duct.  Lu« 
ther's  writings :  viz.  when  Luther  calls  baptism  "  a  divine, 
blessed,  fruitful,  gracious  water."  I  answer:  This  by  no 
means  implies  consubstantiation.  A  divine,  bit  ssed  ^c  wa- 
ter, implies  no  more,  than  a  divine  cloud,  or  chariot,  in  w  hich 
the  Lord  descended,  to  proclaim  his  goodness,  'ongsufleting 
and  mercy,  without  any  consubstant'ation.  So  I  may  also 
say  :  an  imperial  throne  ;  beciiuse  a  roya'  person  sits  on,  Mid 
not  because  he  is  cunsubstuntiated  with  it. 


St.  Paul  declares :  "Ye  are  the  temple  of  the  I'ving  GocI  ; 
^s  Gj  I  'Ml  h  said,  I  will  dwell  in  tlie.n,  i.u,i  wilk  n  lli m  ; 
and  1  will  be  the  r  God,&c.  "  2  Cor.  6,  16.  ''God  hath  s.ist 
forth  the  spirit  of  his  Son,  n  o  your  iieaits,  ciyiiii.',  Abbi.,  Fa- 
ther." Gai.  1.6,  Again — "But  he  that  i^-j-iie'  ut.to  ihe 
Lord  is  one  spirit. —  What !  know  ye  notihat  \oii!  bocl\  ist;  e 
♦emple  of  the  Holy  Ghost  which  is  in  yrii.  &:c. ''  1  •  or.  6  17, 
19.  Accord  ns:  to  Mr.  M's  logick  Si.  Paui  tauiiht  the  tioc- 
ti"i:e  o:  consnbstantiat;on ;  because  he  bays,  that  God  dwe  Is 
and  walk-  in  the  saints,  and  his  spirit  is  in  tb.eir  heaits,  and 
their  bofly  is  his  te  iple.  The  Apost'e  ir.aniiest  y  speaks  o,  a 
connexion,  belween  the  Holy  bpi-i  and  the  Saints;  J  ut  \i  ho 
wou'd  concrhide  ;  be<'ause  the  spirt  dwells  in,  and  is  ct  nnett- 
•d  vvah  thcin  ;  therefore  he  and  the  saints  bi.vf  becon  e  one 
subsiance  ;  hence,  they  like  the  spi;  it  have  become  infinite  and 
almighty?  It  is  ev  dent,  tha  God  may  dweM  in,  anl  operate 
•n  a  saint ;  and  yet  n^t  become  tuie  substance.  Hence,  i:  so, 
why  can  the  spi.it  n  >t  be  coniiected  with  the  \\ater  in  baptism, 
without  being  consubstantiated  with  the  supm^:  Ii  Mr.  M.  rea- 
sons consistently,  he  must  also  deny,  that  God  dwells  in  the 
sain  s,  or  that  they  are  intluenced  by  toe  H-  ly  Spirit  ;  be.  ause, 
according  to  his  statements,  God  and  the  saints  would  becon iC 
cue  substance ;  for  as  much,  as  he  conckides,  that  the  spirit 
could  not  be  conne^tid  with  the  water  without  consubstiintia- 
kon  being  the  infallible  resu't.  Saints  have  materia'  bodies, 
and  so,  is  water  a  materia'  substance.  Now,  if  th'  sp'rit  an 
dsvell  in  the  b.idies  of  s  jnts,  as  his  temple,  \>  ithout  leirj:  (lie 
substance,  he  m  y  eqiia' y,  be  connected  with  u  ater.  with  ut 
any  other  consequence.  Whether  Mr.  M.  f)rmaly  denies  the 
ir'.fluence  of  the  s[)irit,  I  do  not  asset  Such  as  ari;ue  against 
Lutherans,  impe  ching  them  with  the  doctrine  o  eon-iubsian- 
tiation  b.^^ause  they  maintain,  that  the  e'ements  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  are  connected  wiiU  the  body  and  blood  ;  ;ind  water  in 
"baptism  with  the  spirit,  perhaps  do  not  know,  th^it  thpy  are 
laying  th;*  vcv  foundation,  for  denying  the  d\\  eVini?"  of  God  in 
his  Nuints.  and  theinflu  nee  of  th-^  spirit.  For  whatever  may  be 
•aid  asra  nst  the  one.  eqiia'ly  v\  ill  apply  to  the  other.  I  I  s:ty  : 
Shou  d  the  wa'ei-  in  bapism  be  connected  'Aith  the  spirit, lh(n 
he  i.;  also  eon-ubstantiated  with  it :  hence  the  •>.  ater  possesses 
a'l  the  heal  ni  an  1  '=anctif\ing  influences  rf  the  !=piiit,  \ea  it 
becomes  like  the  sp-rit.  'nfini  e  :  nd  omnipotent:  T  mfiy  with 
eqad  proor'ety  arg^ue :  if  the  Ho'y  Sn  it  d\%  e'ls  n  a  saint, 
then  he  has  b  *eo'ne one sib-;tance  withthi*  spirit ;  henc  he  pos- 
S'^ss-s  al'  the  h'^a'injr  md  •saneti  V  ng  influence-,  and  yen  like 
ihe  sprit  has  become  infinite  and  omnipotent,  and  an  object  of 


Id 

supreme  adoration !  Now,  Mr.  M.  must  either  deny  llic  ior. 
flueiive  ui  ihe  spiiit;  oi"  else  must  see,  that  his  argument  is  a 
ba  elaced  sopaism.  If  we  are  not  influeneed  by  the  spirit, 
wuat  have  we  to  guide  us,  but  our  fallen  reason  and  visiuuary 
Piuntoiu>  ?     Tiiis  is  nothing  short  t'f  Deism. 

It  1  were  a  Deist,  I  would  thank  Mr  M.  for  his  argu- 
ment ;  as  it  v\ould  serve  me  to  prove  how  absurd  it  is,  to  be- 
lieve that  the  Holy  Ghost  dwells  in,  or  operates  on  any  n.an; 
hence  I  wou<d  impeach  all  chrij^tians  with  superstition,  or 
maintaining  the  idea  of  eousubstantiation,  in  that  they  believey 
G  id  dwells  .n  them  ;  which  makes  him  and  them  one  sub- 
stance ;  hence  they  all  would  become  supreme  Gods !  But 
blessed  be  God  /  no  such  sophistry  is  sufficient  to  prove,  that 
God  is  not  with,  and  does  not  operate  upon  h  s  saints.  He 
however,  does  not  simply  operate  upon  intelligent  beings  ;  but 
also  upon  ail  his  creatures:  lor  "  he  upholds  all  things  by  the 
word  of  his  power;"  Heb.  1,  § — "in  him  we  live,  move  and 
have  our  being ; "  Acts  17,  28 —  and  where  in  all  rreation  can 
any  space  be  ibuiid  where  he  is  not  present  r  Ps.  139 —  and 
yet,  is  he  neither  conioundtd,  nor  eonsubstantiuted  with  any 
thing;  neither  excluded  nor  included.  Now,  what  strange 
thing  have  I  said,  in  this,  that  the  spirit  of  God  was  connec- 
ted with  water  in  baptism  ;  that  it  Was  his  vehicle  ;  or,  to 
speak  figuiatively,  his  blessed  cloud,  or  chariot,  in  which  he 
descends  to  treat  with,  and  to  shed  abroad  his  influence  upon 
siimers  ?  I  have  said  nothing  absurd;  unless  we  believe, 
that  Moses  reconled  an  absurdity,  when  he  Si.y^.,  that :  "  the 
spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  waters  ;  '  Gen  1,  2 — and  un- 
less, we  believe  it  absurd,  that  God  operates  through  m.  tiy 
mediums  on  his  works,  of  which  there  are  mar  ,  exi^mples. 

.Mr  M.  Says  :  (pag  SO^i  "  It  appears  to  r  :,  agreeable  to 
the  doctrine  of  St.  Paul,  thai  the  preaching  <'i  ..-ie  gospel  is  the 
oi  dinary  means  of  regeneration  ;  or  the  means  by  w  hich  peo- 
ple a-'e  eniblefl  to  i)elieve  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  so  as  to 
be  saved.  ''  He  also  acknowledges,  p.  24 — that  the  spirit  is 
connected  with  the  word.  Preaching  is  performed  with  the 
lun.gs,  and  the  organs  of  speech,  with  the  assistance  o'  the  air  ; 
an!  the  vord  being  connected  with  the  spirit ; hence, the  s|)ir- 
it  would  as  much  he  consubstantiated  with  the  words,  that 
flow  from  the  preacher's  lips,  as  with  the  vAat«T  in  bapti-m. 
Whit  can  be  the  ditYerence,  whether  I  belii  ve  the  spiri;  is 
connected  with  the  words,  that  are  formed  by  the  organs  of 
8))eeoh  and  the  air,  or  liiat  he  is  connected  with  water  If 
one  is  eon-^ubstantiation  tbeolheris  the  same.  So  that,  in  the 
same  manner,  in  which  he  impeaches  me  with  this  doctrine. 


u 

Kie  h.rlds  it  himself.  But,  to  speak  the  truth,  neither  the  preatii:. 
iij^-  nor  tht  uater  is  consubstaiitiaud  \\\.h  tli<  ^pili^  ;  but 
they  are  mediums  by  which  he  o))erates. 

I  mu^t  yet  o!)seiTe,  that  although  God  is  not  consubstantia-. 
ted  with  any  thing  in  all  creation  ;  yc-,  the  blessed  and  niys- 
teiious  incarnation  ol'  Christ  is  an  only  exception  The  Son. 
o  G.)d,  does  not  only  dwell  in,  and  operate  upon  the  human- 
ity, he  assumed  ;  but  has  be  ome  one  with  the  same  :  lor  "the 
Worrl  was  made  flesh.  "  John  1,  U.  Nevertheless,  h.  was 
miule  fleshy  without  any  mixture  or  confusion  ot  the  two  na- 
tores. 


SECTION  III. 

3Ir  M.  confidently  a=serts,  that  I  make  a  little  water  in  bantism  equal  to. 
Goc!  ;  by  which  he  attempts  to  convict  me  of  an  absindiiv.  am,  b!as« 
phemy.  But  it  is  shevwi,  that  he  has  taken  unfair  means  to  do  it,  and 
that  his  assertion  is  a  calumny. 

That  Mr  M  has  charged  me  w  ith  the  doctrine  of  consub- 
stantiatiun,  was  unfaii ,  and  groundless  ;  ye  ,  not  so  horrid,  as 
wh'n  he  confidently  charges  me,  with  making  a  little  ■v^  iter 
jn  baptism,  equal  to  God.  If  the  charge  ware  ti  ue,  tiiere  coidd 
b>-  no  greater  absurdity,  and  blasphemy  ;  and  it  vouUl  be 
^iifhcient  to  render  me  the  most  lidiculous  and  odious  charuc- 
tei-.  Mr.  M.  has  really  exhibited  this  charge,  with  its  b.uS- 
ph.Mnuus  consequences. 

Hi^  "^ays,  "  Mr.  H.,  in  section  8.  caps  the  climax,  where 
he  makes  water  baptism  equal  to  God  himself ;  which  I  never 
could  have  believed  any  man  wouM  have  done,  had  I  not  secjj 
it  myse  r. "  page  26.  And  in  his  note,  page  §3.  he  says^ 
**  Thus  you  may  see  that  Mr.  H  ke^  ps  up  the  idea  that  bap^ 
tism  is  equal  to  God  ;  which  seems  to  me  to  be  almost  hias- 
phemy  to  make  a  little  water  in  baptism  equal  to  the  eternal 
God."  This  horrid  charge,  he  attempts  to  establish  by  tlie 
foMowing  passages,  which  occur  in  my  treatise  ;  and  wh'fh 
I  sha'l  here  transcribe  :  viz  "  I 

*  Hoy  baptism  owes  its  value,  dignity,  and  majesty,  to  the 
Saviour's  command,  and  the  name  oi  the  Holy  Trinity,  in 
•which  it  is  performed, ' 

'  The  cnmmand  of  Christ,  and  the  name  of  the  Holy  Ttmir 
ty,  onstitutc  the  ground -work  of  baptism,  and  water  i-^  t'leii* 
vehicle*    I^ow,  as  valu^bie^  as  holy,  as  saving,  and  as  ve^^i- 


<2 

eWe,  as  the  name  or  Go.l  is,  just  so  valuable,  holy,  saving  and- 
veiuTub  e  is  buptisiii ;  because  that  name  is  the  giounu  uirk 
there..l  ' 

~"  '  G  >d's  na  ne  in  the  scr"ptures  is  frequently  put  for  himself; 
a-  iur  iti>tan^t',  •  I  am  the  Loid  :  that  is  my  name.  "  Isa.  4, 
2,  8      Til  •  L  nil  is  his  name  ;  this  name  is  the  Lord  " 

'  Baplisn  is  vci  y  Holy,  because  God's  name,  w  hich  is  'n  it, 
is  !i.ly.&".  Ti»e  six  winged  Seraphim,  in  their  ieci|;rccal 
ha:  mony,  L-rie  I  holy,  ho'y,  holy,  is  the  liOrd  God  ot  hosts  ; 
the  whole  earth  is  luh  oT  hi-  gloiy.  I^a  6.  2,  8  The  heaV'  ns 
aie  <;l,trious,  and  the  angels  .ue  holy  ;  but  v\hai  are  they  in 
c  inpalsun  to  t'ie  thrice  holy  Jehovah!  They  are  ereated  ; 
hence  noi  the  a  ithors  o*  theii'  gloiy  and  ho'iness,  \Nhich  they 
p  ;ssess  on'.y  n  a  limitt^d  manner,  by  the  wi  1  nl  their  creator. 
B  it  G  id  is  selt-oiiainal ;  the  oiig  n  ol  hmse'^",  is  in  himse  •  : 
liis  h-rliness,  'iki*  hinisel'',  is  uii-^reated  ;  a  love  y  beauty,  and 
excf !  enee,  incomprehensible.  «nsh:  ined  in  light  ina  cessible. 
Tils  ho!ine-^s  is  jcined  to  water,  and  w  ith  it  const  tutes  the 
chii-t  an  baptism  ;  for  God's  name  is  in  it.  and  this  name  is 
thf  same  as  himsp!r,the  thrice  holy  God  the  n'ysterious  gieat 
I  A?»I  'I'hus  baptism  is  intin  te'y  moie  holy  than  all  the 
%vii:gcd  host"-  of  ungels,  and  more  glorious  thiiii  the  heavens; 
\  e  anse  God's  r  a'^  e  is  in  it. '  Heaven  v  flood  ofregeneration, 
paa[e  1-2,  18.  14,  15. 

On  the-;"  pas-ages  Mr.  M.  observes  :  '•  Here  you  may  see 
that  '  r.  H  makes  water  baptism  equal  to  God.  For  1st, 
he  -ays:  'G.^id's  name  is  G  uj  hims-lf,'  thireiure  includes  all 
the  periections  that  belong  to  the  eternal  Godhead.  Now 
says  he  'a-  valuible,  as  holy,  as  ^aving  anrl  veneiable,  as  the 
rame  of  G  d  s,  (which  according  to  him,  is  God  himself)  ^ 
j)st  so  valuable,  holy,  saving,  and  venerable  is  baptism;* 
t!-e!eO!<-j  water  baptism  is  equal  to  God  himself ;  i.  e  p  )s- 
S'sses  all  t!iose  valaab^e,  holy,  saving,  and  venerable  prrjper- 
ties  ani  qua'itie-,  \\  hich  belong  to  God  l"  Again  he  says, 
*'  T'l'.is  it  is  evi  lent,  that  Mr.  H  makes  baptisu'  equal  to  God 
in  gl  M-y  and  holiness.  This  holiness,  which  as  Mi'  H.  says, 
'^  's  j  ined  to  the  *^  a^er,  "  is  infinite  ;  therefore  w  aier  baptism 
is  inhnite,henc  ,  as  he  says,"  is  infinitely  more  ho'y  than  alt  the 
vinged  ho<ts  olangtds^  and  more  glorious  than  the  hea\en*,'* 
TTow  I  miglit  ask,  what  is  infinilely  more  holy  than  all  the 
lusrs  of  ana:els?     The  answer  is,  God  only.     But  Mr.  H.  i 

6:i>'s,  water  baptism  is  :  therefore,  water  baptism  is  equal  to  I 

G)d  in  holness. ''    page  27. 

To  al   t'lis  I  answer,  that  none  of  those  passasres,  whiek 
jyir,  M,  has  quoted  from  my  treutiscj  say  the  least  thing  about 


^'\ 


An 


IS 

"water  bein^  as  holy,  or  in  any  other  respect  cc[nal  to  €lo<3+ 
He  is  chailetjgid  to  produce  a  singic  expression,  uliiciibays 
that  water  in  bapiism  iS  ttjia!  to  laid. 

In  order  to  avert  the  idea  iVom  the  reader's  mind,  ihafe 
water  was  as  hoiy  or  equal  to  Go.',  I  \\as  partieular  m  sub- 
5"iiiino;  a  'ew  passages  i"r  tin  Doct.  Luther's  writings  The 
same  I  shall  insert  here:  viz. 

••  Thus  (so  says  thf  pas^age  inserted  in  my  treatise)  it  i^  not 
mere  wat;'r.  but  a  water  conm  etcd  v\itb.  ard  sanciifitni  b\  tl;c 
word  o'  G  k1  ;  njt  ^hat  it  is  better  in  itseh  than  oiher  waier, 
but  berau^e  tlie  word  anrl  com;  and  o  G  d  are  added  theie- 
unto  It  is  therefore  not'iin^  but  the  viiiainy  and  nioikerN  of 
the  devil,  that  now  our  newfangled  spirits  biasj>lietve  bapti.^m, 
and  exeiitde  Gotl's  word  and  order,  and  view  it  as  iioili  ng 
more  than  wat  r  dip^ied  out  of  a  louiitain  ;  and  then  vaiMii, 
what  can  a  handful  of  water  help  the  sou;  r  But  ah,  n  y 
friend,  who  do  s  not  know  that  water  is  water,  v\htnitis 
separated?  But  how  daie  yru  thu^  interfere  v%iih  the  onler 
of  G  » I,  and  seperate  th.-  best  treasure,  with  v  h:ch  he  busei  n- 
neete  I  and  incorporated  it,  and  will  not  have  it  separiitei:  ? 
F  "r  this  is  the  essi  nee  in  the  water — God's  word,  or  eonimand, 
and  na  ne  ;  whieh  is  a  greater  and  nobler  t.  lasure  than  heav- 
en and  ear  h."     Heav.nly  flood,  p  g  -  20. 

N  >vv,  if  water  in  baptism  is  in  itseli"  no  better  than  other 
water,  and  if  w  at^er  is  water  ;  and  il  the  essence  in  the  w  ater 
is  God's  word  and  name,  i-  it  not  evident,  that  I  lould  not 
pjssibly  mean,  that  water  was  ••qual  to  God?  A  thungh,  I 
nave  b-'en  Ccireful  to  inform  the  reader  v\i(h  Luther's  words, 
that  water  in  bapiism  was  but  water;  yet.  Mi*.  M.  with  all 
this  before  h  s  eyes,  he  without  ^ham  or  renmrse  te  's  his  lea- 
ders, that  1  make  a  !it  e  water  eq.ia!  t '  God!  It  seems  he 
cou  d  find  no  better  foundation,  on  w  hii  h  o  budd  his  leiV^ta- 
tion  :  th^refiire  he  air^nn,  takes  his  reiiii^e  toadowniight  fa'-^e- 
hood.  Where  Mr.  M  ore*  where  ean  yon  find  a  siptd--  ex- 
pressitm.  that  says  :  a  litt'e  w  ater  in  baptism  is  equal  to  G;>d  ? 
'  You  have  eonfidently  assM'ted  it  ;  yet  p^)5itive'y,  it  is  y.air 
O    n  'abiie&tion 

It  is  trw^,  I  have  said  baptism  is  very  holy  ;  that  a"?  va'na- 
b'e,  as  h  )'y,  as  -avinsr,  and  v  nei-iible,  as  the  name  oT  God  is  ; 
jn-t  S(»  valuable,  holy,  &e  is  baptism  ;  and  that  th:-  nne;  ated 
holiness  o'  G  d  was  joined  to  the  water  in  baptism:  bnt 
wh'^f^  is  there  a  word  h  re,  that  says,  water  is  a*  va'rable,  as 
holy.  &c.  as  God?  When  1  sry,  byptisn-,  I  do  nr.t  al'iid*  to 
w  *ter  as  the  es-enee  of  this  institution  ;  but  ('i  'y  in  so  'ar.asjt 
ts  a  vehicle  thereof ♦    For  thttt  reason  1  dcfinecl  1%  thus  ;  the 


u 

command  of  Christ  and  the  na  ne  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  consti- 
tute  L'le  g!':)jnl-vVo;-k ')f  baptism,  uul  waie:  is  iheii  'chicle. 
I(  (!!_'  command  of  Cm-ist,  and  the  name  of  the  Ho'y  Trinity 
can-.tiiute  tht.'  g  oand-work  af,  it  is  evident,  that  water  as  such 
dj;;s  n  >t  constitute  baptism  ;  but  as  already  defined  is  the  ve- 
hii^le  of  this  blessed  essence.  But  it  seems  when  Mr.  M. 
speaks  of  baptism,  he  has  nothing  n  view  but  simple  water ; 
©■  :ijr  vise  he  woiid  not  have  conckided,  that  I  make  a  little 
w  iter  eqaai  to  G  » 1.  It  is  to  be  recollected,  that  1  never  ^^aid  : 
as  valaable.ho'y,  saving,  &c.  as  the  name  ol  God  is  ;  so  valua- 
ble holy,  saving,  &c.  is  water  :  but  baptism,  according  to  the  de- 
unit:  m  I  gave  of  it.  According  to  this  discription,  bcptism  und 
sin  j1  *  vyater  ar^^  not  synonymous.  The  word  baptise  originally 
signifies  to  immerse,  or  to  wash;  but  wdien  it  is  applied  to 
th  Oi'"istian  mstitulion,  it  does  not  siiinify  as'.mple  washing; 
boc  a  Wis'iing  in  th"  nunc  of  the  Holy  Trinity.  Hence  my 
araj  imen  i^  .•  the  Christian  baptism  is  a  divine  performance  j 
because  it  i-  G')  I's  own  institution,  its  foundation  is  his  glori- 
ous name,  an, I  water  its  me  hum  ;  therefore  baptism  tlius  dis- 
cribeijis  as  holy,  as  venerable  and  saving  as  the  name  of 
G.)  i  is.  Wiio  would  ffeny,  that  ^he  name  of  God  is  as  holy 
as  it  is  itself?  Now,  when  this  name  is  used  in  baptism^  it  is 
]us*  as  ho'y  and  saving  there,  as  when  it  is  use!  otherwise. 
B  »t  all  this  is  far  from  saying,  water  is  equal  to  God;  because 
that  is  the  m^'ve  vehicle ;  and  therefore  infinitely  tar  from  the 
C'S  nee  in  the  Christian  baptism.  The  only  question  to  be  de- 
fin'd.  to  decide  this,  is  whether  the  name  of  God  is  as  holy,  or 
w'leiher  it  is  himself  ?  Mr.  M.  answers  this  in  the  negative. 
I  shall  make  my  reply  to  this  in  another  section.  Whenever 
lie  proves,  tha^  neither  the  command  nor  name  of  God  cim- 
stitutc:  the  essence  of  baptism,  and  that  the  name  oi  God  is 
11)^  G)d  himself;  then  only  shall  I  surrender  as  desperate^ 
the  cause  I  have  hitherto  maintained* 

It  is  in  v-ain  for  iMr.  M  to  cjn«  lurle,  that  because  the  holy 
name  of  Gid  is  ioined  to; therefore  the  water  must  become  e- 
qa.iliy  infinitely  holy.  This  is  already  elucidated  in  the  pie- 
ce;! ;ig  section  ;  but  I  win  yet  add.  that  Mr  M.  hiniseh  in- 
sifts  on  ^he  neces>^»ty  of  being  baptised  with  the  Holy  Ghost; 
if  so.  would  he  conclude,  that  the  man  wh)  receives  this  spir- 
it-ta'  baptism,  would  thereby  become  as  holy,  yea  equal  to 
the  Hidy  Ghost?  By  no  means.  Now,  what  is  the  differ- 
en'e  v-.  it  respects  the  point  in  question  :  whether  I  believe 
the  Hnly  Ghost  is  joined  to  a  man,  or  to  water,  for  if  that 
woul  ?  malv'e  ^hf  water  as  holy,  yea  equal  to  God.  it  would 
mjike  the  man  the  very  s^rae*    Mr*  M.  says,  page  ?§^  "And 


15 

also,  when  this  holy  and  glorious  haptifiin-is  poured  en  ns,  ii© 
marvel  that  as  he  sa}fe,  '  Giui's  lum  f  (ulvxh  h  Got!  himself,) 
is  poured  on  us,  end  v\  e  thereby  becon  t  G« ds!'  A\ic,  i:  it 
does  not  make  us  supreme  Gods,  yet  as  it  '  i^  iiifiuitei)  more 
hoiy  than  the  angels,  and  more  gicricus  than  tie  heavtns,  '  it 
must 01  couise,  niake  us  higher  arc  ncre  g  (rioiis  ibai;  all  ihe 
angehc  busts  !  "  Answer.  Mr.  M.  speaks  of  a  spiiitral 
baptism,  seperate  and  distinct  inm  watei,  ai;d  irsisis  en  n  as 
necessary,  p.  4.1  !No\\  I  wondu.  ^^httl^er  when  a  n  j i;  is 
baptised  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  without  any  v,  atei .  it  dees  rot 
make  him  as  much  a  God,  and  higher  anrt  n  ore  gloricus  d  an 
all  the  angelic  hosts  ;  as  when  iGod's  name  iwhich  is  God 
himself,)  is  poured  on  us.  in  the  baptism  I  have  descriled? 
If  it  be  nonsense  to  believe,  that  the  nan  e  oi  God  can  be  pou- 
red on  us  in  baptism  with  water;  becaust  it  would  n.fckt  us 
super-angelic  Gods;  it  must  equally  be  nonsense,  to  belit  ve 
with  Mr.  M  that  we  must  receive  the  baptisn'  ol  the  spirit 
without  water  ;  for  the  same  spirit  would  nevertheless,  be 
poured  on  us;  and  that  according  to  Mr.  M's  logick  would 
make  us  super-cherubic  Gods  I  Mr.  M.  aruuing  that  il  G"(''s 
name  was  poured  onus  in  baptism  with  v^ater,  that  it  wtuld 
make  us  super-angelic,  which  he  o  coursi  pronounces  non- 
sense ;  is  all  the  while,  producing  all  the  premises  that  an-  ne- 
cessary, for  denying  the  blessed  eflus  on  of  the  Hoiy  Ghost, 
with  or  without  water,  or  in  any  oiher  way  :  lor  if  the  spirit 
poui-ed  on  us,  in  one  way,  would  make  us  s;,|)er-angeiic  Gods, 
it  would  do  the  very  same  in  any  other.  W  hy  dot  she  as-  a 
consistent  logician,  not  at  once  tell  us,  that  he  does  notbeiieve, 
the  Holy  Ghost  is  at  all  poured  out  upon  any  man  :  for  no 
matter  in  what  way,  v^ ith  or  without  water,  it  would  make 
the  man  a  super-angelic  God.  He  has  no  just  reason  !or  his 
sarcasm,  in  consequence  of  my  calling  Christians  Gods.  Does 
he  not  know  that  the  expression  is  scriptural  ?  "  I  have  said 
ve  are  Gods,  and  a'l  of  you  are  children  of  the  most  high,  '^ 
Ps  82,6.       John  10,84.  §5 

In  page  16,  17,  he  ridicules  the  idea  of  water  in  baptism, 
being  a  vehicle.  He  says,  "  But  certainly  it  must  be  V'ry 
absurd  to  suppose,  that  all  that  fullness  of  grace,  all  that  pow  er 
and  energy  of  the  almii^hty  spirit,  which  are  necessary  to  re- 
generate and  renew  th'^  soul  in  the  image  of  God,  and  there- 
by free  it  from  sin,  and  prepare  it  for  heaven'y  bliss,  are  con- 
tained in,  and  conveyed  to  it  by  water  baptism.  Yes  just  as 
absurfl  as  to  say,  that  when  th'  husbandman  plough'^,  plants, 
an;l  cnliivates.  that  the  snn-bcams  and  shr.wers  o'  rjiin  ;ire 
c;ontaincd  in,  and  conveyed  along  the  means  of  ploughing^ 


pliintlng*,  cultivating,  &c.  Answer.  By  what  has  he  ]B»q» 
ved.  rhat  it  is  absunl,  to  believe  tha  God  opeiatts  through 
mediums?  He  merely  saying  so,  is  no  evitience  What  he 
assij^ns  as  a  proof  is  insuiiicient.  Does  he  not  know  that 
\vhen  the  ground  is  plv)Ui;hed.  the  rain  is  contained  in  the  inr- 
rows,and  the  sun  lieams  operate  through  thi  ploughed  ground 
on  the  seeds,  and  with  the  motsture  contained  therein,  pro- 
mote their  growth  to  perfection  1 


SECTION  IV* 

>Ii',  Tvl.  \;u(3ertake3  to  prove  by  my  own  words,  that  baptism  is  not  regene- 
ration, nor  the  ordinary  means.  This  is  examined.  Il  is  shewn  that  he 
admits  the  word  of  God  to  be  spirit  and  life  ;  from  which  I  argue,  that 
baptism  must  be  the  means  ;  because  the  woi"d  is  connected  with  it.  H6 
accuses  me  for  not  proving,  that  baptism  is  an  incorruptible  flood  of  re- 
generation— the  piootis  exhibited. 

Mr.  M»  says,  page  11,  "I  was  in  the  third  place  to  shew" 
S-om  Mr.  Ilenke-'s  own  words,  that  water  baptism  is  nt»t  re-' 
generation.  This  I  could  do  from  several  places  in  h  s  piecej 
but  I  w  11  confine  myse!f  to  one  or  two  places.  "  Answer. 
Ho  had  no  need  to  prove  by  my  own  v\  ords,  that  baptism  r^ 
not  regeneration,  as  I  nowhere  said,  it  was.  But  as  he  also, 
attempts  to  prove  by  the  same,  that  it  is  not  the  ordinaiy 
means,  I  shall  examine  his  statements.  To  prove  th  s,  he 
quoted  the  following  from  my  treatise,  which  is  also,  here 
inserted  :  viz. 

'  When  the  word  of  God  is  purely  preached,  it  penetrateis 
ik\c  hearts  of  a  1  who  attend  to  it.  Such  as  do  not  persist  in  re- 
sisting, will  obtain  the  fruits  of  salvation.  The  unbeliever  is 
likewise  ca'led,  convicted,  atnd  diav\n,  but  he  violently  resists 
the  Holy  Ghost,  &c.  '  Heavenly  flood,  page  9.  On  th.s 
Mr.  M  ob-icrves  :  •'  That  water  baptism  is  not  re.venerat.on. 
For  he  (alludins  to  ut  ,)  says,  <  The  word  of  God  prn  ly 
pi-eiiched.  penetrates  the  hi  arts  of  all  who  attend  to  it  :  anr'  if 
not  resisted,  brings  them  to  obtain  the  fruits  o*  sabatif  n. 
Water  baptism  is  not  tho  wor  1  preached,  neither  is  it  vi/n- 
nected  with  it,  \Ahen  it  is  prea'  bed.  Therei'  re.  it  is  Mi-  word 
preached,  and  not  wa!er  baptism,  that  penetralcs  the  h(  livts  of 
those  who  :;ttend  to  :t,  and  brint'S  ihem  to  fbtain  the  fruits  of 
salvation.    This  oversets  ijis  doctrine,  and  proves  that  water 


17 

baptism  is  wok  regeneration*    According  to  Mr.  H's  doctriBCj 

tile  ar:;um'  nt  woul  1  have  to  stand  thus — Bapiism  is  a  heav- 
enly tlood,  or  ordinary  means  oi  reg-neration — lor  the  woid  of 
God  purely  preached,  penetrates  the  iiearts  oJ  all  those  who 
attend  to  it,  and  brings  tliem  to  obtain  the  traits  ot  salvation — 
thereiore  baptism  is  a  heavenly  flood,  &c.  Now  you  ii-ay  see 
it  is  a  glaring  sophism,  and  of  course  oversets  Mr.  H's  do«. 
trine  ;  for  if  it  is  the  word  of  God,  purely  preached,  that  pena- 
fa-ates  the  heart,  and  brings  it  to  obtain  the  t'ruits  of  salvation, 
it  is  not  water  baptism  that  does  it.  And  page  12,  he  says^ 
"  Further  he  (a  luding  to  rae,)  says  :  The  unbeliever  is  like- 
w  se  .-aMed,  convicted  and  draw-n,  but  he  violently  resists  the 
H)ty  Ghost.  An-iwer  :  if  water  baptism  is  regeneration,  or 
the  ordinary  means  by  which  men  are  regenerated  ;  those 
who  are  baptised  are  re  reneratrd  ;  therefore,  not  among  the 
unbelievers.  And  also,  if  the  Holy  Ghost  is  connected  with 
the  water  in  baptism,  and  conveyed  to  the  sou'  by  it,  as  the 
ordinary  means,  how  can  a  person  resist  the  Holy  Gliost  ia 
the  preaching  of  the  word?  It  appears  to  me  he  could  not; 
bu!  upon  Mr.  H's  plan,  would  have  to  resist  water  baptism, 
in  order  to  resist  the  iioly  Ghost.  So  I  think  this  oversets  his- 
doctrine,  and  proves  that  water  baptism  is  not  regenerat.OD, 
nor  the  ordinary  means.  " 

He  in  like  manner,  qtioted  sundry  other  passages  from  my 
treatise,  which  prove,  that  the  spirit  s  administered  by  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel  ;  from  which  he  draws  the  same  con- 
elusions  Thus  we  have  Mr.  M's  assertions,  together  w'Xh 
the  evidences,  wh  ch  he  supposes  will  prove  them,  before  us. 

Answer.  Where  did  Mr.  M  in  any  part  of  my  treatise  see, 
that  baptism  is  the  word  of  God  preached  ?  or,  because,  the 
word  of  God  purely  preached,  penetrates  the  hearts  o!  ail  who 
attend  to  it ;  therefore,  water  baptism  is  the  ordinary  means  of 
regeneration  He  no  vvhei-e  saw  any  such  logick.  and  the 
passages  he  has  quoted  say  no  such  thing.  I  have  truly  said, 
baptism  is  not  simple  water  only  ;  but  with  it  the  word  oi  God 
is  connected.  See  Heavenly  flood,  p  7,8  Here  is  nothing 
about  the  word  preached  ;  nor  because  the  word  preached  pen- 
etrates the  heart ;  that  therefore,  baptism  is  the  ordinaiy  means. 
Mr.  M.  in  a  clandestine  manner  attempts  to  make  his  readers 
bel'.eve,  that  I  brought  this  argument  on  purpose  to  prove,  that 
biiptism  was  a  flood  of  regeneration,  and  then  in  a  foui  triumph 
attributes  an  absurdity  to  my  logi.  k.  The  quotation  he  has 
ma.f>  from  my  t  eatis'*.  "that  v\  ht  n  the  word  of  God  is  purely 
preached,  it  oeni^trates  the  hearts,  &c  "  were  not  u  rittf-n  -a  ith 
a  view,  to  prove  that  baptism  \\  as  a  ftfofll  of  regeneration  j  buft 


u 

'So  shew  the  divine  energy  of  the  word,  as  it  manifests  itself 
when  i;  is  preached.  B  .  proving  that  the  word  possesses  t-ucli 
ahetjergVr-wiienpreach.'d  ,  it  wua  d  loiiow.  that  tins  word  waa 
inseparably  connected  with  the  spirit ;  hence, a  word  maniles. 
t  ng  su  h  an  energy,  in  one  instance,  it  may  just  y  be  conclu* 
ded,that  it  possesses  the  same,  when  otherwise  applied,  as  in 
baptism.  To  repeat  it — ii' the  word  possesses  such  a  divine 
eneigy  w')en  it  is  preached,  and  as  this  principle  is  insepara- 
ble ;  even  so  the  word  possesses  the  saiiie  wWn  used  in  bap- 
tism. To  this  end  I  produced  those  passages  in  my  treatise, 
whi;  h  their  Cv*ntext  p!a  n'y  indicates. 

B  ;t  is  Mr.  M's.  leas  jiiing  c  >rrcct  ?  ^o.  Does  it  follow, 
because  tlie  word  when  it  is  preached,  is  a  means  oi  regenera- 
tion ;  tor  that  reason,  ii  is  not  a  means,  when  it  is  conntcted 
v-'ith  Water  in  baptism?  Al  it  does  prove,  is  that  a  man  may,- 
a;so  be  regenerated  by  hearing  the  wortl  preached  ;  but  does 
not  deny,  that  baptism  is  a  means,  or  the  ordinary  means.  Mr. 
IV},  says,  p.  19,  *•  that  God  otten  used  different  means  to  ettect 
the  same  thing —  and  thai  he  is  not  contined  to  any  particular 
mean.  "  Now,  if  this  be  correct,  how  could  he  with  any 
consistency,  cone  ude  tliat,  because  the  word  when  preached, 
is  the  means  ;  thereiure  baptism  cannot  ?  Herf  he  seems  to 
insinnate,  as  if  preaching  was  the  only  means  to  the  exclusion 
o  baptism  ;  yet.  otherv  ise  contends  tor  it,  that  Ged  often  uses 
d  d  rent  meansy&e.  Why  does  he  not  upon  his  broatl  bas€ 
admit,  that  both  may   be  means? 

Hts  other  objection  sha  !  be  answered  in  another  section 
I  shall  now  inquire :  whe.her  the  gospel-v\  ord  is  insepai  ably 
connected  with  the  spirit;  so  that  it  may  properly  be  called 
spirit  and  U  e  r  Mr  M.  has  ;'u  nished  the  answer  p.  24,  v^  here 
he  says,  he  never  denied,  tht. he  soirit  was  connected  with  the 
word  ;  and  that  it  possesses  quickening  and  regenerating  vir- 
tues. Very  weM  !  herein  we  agree  But  the  next  question- 
is  this  word  of  God,  possessing  those  blessed  qualities,  con- 
nected  with  water  in  bapti-m  ?  Will  he  ans\ver  in  the  afiir- 
fnative,  or  neaative?  Oh  this  he  ventured  nothing  positive, 
SXe  says,*^'  Thus  you  may  see  how  Mr.  H.  proves  his  doc- 
trinp.—  By  conn  cting  the  \Aord  with  the  water,  and  theieby 
makrtg  it  one  '.vith  tiie  word,  possessingthe  same  regenerating^ 
vir'ue  ibat  the  g  (spel  word  possesses.  This  certidnly  is  the 
doetr  ne  of  consubstantiation  .  and  v  his  pirmises  are  true,  his 
in-'cenfe  hs  correct :  i.  e.  if  the  water  does  become  one  with 
fhc  gospel  v^ord,  and  possesses  all  those  quickening^  rcgeoeit*. 


ting  vJi-tucs  that  the  gospel  word  possesses,  it  would  then  \)ei> 
ricii  ri  )od  of  g:-a  •••,  by  winch  s 'uls  were  regeiuruied.  But 
his  pi'ctnises  iue  iaise  for  the  w  vier  possesses  no  such  proper- 
ties. "  p.  2io,  24.  By  this  he  does  not  positively  deny  al  the 
connection  .f  the  W()r(i  uad  the  water;  nor  does  he  own  any, 
B^it  he  in  the  most  unfair  manner,  perverts  the  conn-^ctiv.n  I 
cpeak  o',  into  consu.>stantiation,  and  denies  that  the  water  pv;s. 
sesses  regenerating  virtues;  and  then  concludes,  ii  the  uater 
became  one  with  the  word  ;  so  as  to  jiossess  regenerating  v.r- 
lucs  ;  then  he  would  admit,  that  baptism  was  a  llood  oi  rej.,en- 
€ration.  Why  ail  this?  I  no  v.  here  suiH,that  tho  word  be- 
came one  niih  the  wator,  nor  that  it  Itseif,  posscssci  aiiy  re- 
g  nerating  virtues.  But  is  the  word  of  G'kI  cunntcteil  with 
water .^  I  do  not  a=k  svtirtlier  the  word  aiid  ;.he  water  have 
beome  one  tiiinjj?  nor  whether  th«'  water  has  such  vhti.;e>  in 
itself?  R'  laiive  to  this  argiupcnt,  it  docs  not  matter,  wheti.er 
the  water  its, -If  received  any  such  virtues;  for  it  is  sulticient, 
if  the  word  has  such,  with  which  it  is  connected  Baptism 
is  as  much  a  flood  of  regeneration,  when  the  water  itselt  pos- 
sesses no  ^uch  virtues  ;  asif  ii  di  ! ;  t)eeause  the  otlur  part,  tiie 
word  of  God,  which  is  the  essence  or  baptism,, possesses  ail 
such  :  so  that  n  itwithstanding,  the  word  which  is  spint  and  ii'e 
is  thereby  administ  -red,  vvhicli  amply  supplies  the  natcrai  de- 
ficiency of  water.  Hence  sa^  certa  n  as  baptism  is  administe- 
red, so  certain  is  the  word  o!  G!>d  adnimistered  ;  because  tliat 
is  the  essence  of  the  instirution:  if  so,  the  spirit  is  also  admin- 
istered.  Should  Mr  M  d  ny,  that  the  word  o  God  is  etn- 
nected  with  the  water,  I  would  be  glad  to  know,  how  he,  or 
any  of  his  brethren  perform  baptism?  Does  he,  or  they  bap- 
tise without  any  words?  If  so  ;  then  it  would  be  a  silent  bap- 
tism,  a  mere  sprink  ing  of  wat;  r,  like  that  of  hcly  water,  in  a 
Roman  Catholick cathedral  without  words.  Surely. the  Meth- 
odist pre.ichers  use  words  w  hen  they  baptise  ;  but  \v  hctlu  r  Mr 
M.  does,  IS  more  than  I  know  wiihin  my  "wn  knowledge; 
yet,  I  suppose  he  does.  But  although,  they  use  words  ;  yet 
the  question  is,  are  they  t'leir  own, or  the  words  of  God  ?  If 
they  are  their  own,  then  the  baptism  they  per'brm,  is  ci  a  do. 
mest  ck  manu*acture  ;  consequently  not  the  Christian  bapti-m, 
S'irely  n;iher  Mr.  M.  nor  any  of  his  breth.ren,  wou'd  as  ra- 
tional men,  admit  that  the  words  they  use,  were  their  ov  n 
mmufaeture  ;  for  if  they  did.  they  would  at  on<e,  render  them- 
selves infamous  in  the  sight  of  all  Christians  A'l  christian 
chu"ch»s  in  the  x^orld,  when  they  baptise,  u-e  the  word  of 
^Q<L    Tile  scriptoi'es  also  speak  of  this ;  — ''  Husbands  loiT* 


20 

your  wives^even  as  Christ  also  loved  the  churcli,&  gave  hiiit- 
selffoi-  it ;  that  '.i:.  iiiig  itsancti  y  and  cleanse  it  with  the  v^  ash- 
ing of  water  by  the  word."  Eph.  5  25,  26.  ^ov  ,  vs  hen 
St  Paul  attributes  the  sanctification  and  cleansing  o\  the 
chuich,  to  the  washing  oi  the  water,  by  the  word,  what  does 
he  otherwise,  but  connect  both  togeth<  r,  lor  this  blessed  pur- 
pose. H  »vv  was  it  possible  for  Mr.  M.  with  such  a  testiino- 
ny  before  him,  not  to  see  the  connexion  of  the  water  and  the 
'Wi)Y(\  in  baptism,  and  consequently  discover  it  to  be  a  neans 
ol  r  'generation  ?  Whai  il"  God  sanctifies  &  cleanses  his  chui  ch 
w  th  the  washing  of  water  by  the  word?  and  still  no  connex- 
ion between  water  and  the  word  and  no  regeneration  resul- 
ting from  it?  This  is  vei-y  strange.  Surely  IVSr.  M.  cannot 
deny  that  the  word  of  God  is  cormected  with  water  ;  for  evea 
it  he  should  not  believe  St.  Paul ;  yet,  the  practice  of  the  Meth- 
odist  church,  of  w  hich  he  is  a  conspicuous  member,  is  suflicienfe 
tfo  convince  him  ;  for  baptism  by  that  community  is  peiforned 
with  the  'vord  and  water.  Since  the  word  ol  God.  which  Mr. 
M  acknowledges  to  be  spirit  and  life,  and  possessing  regene- 
rating virtues,  with  water  constitutes  baptism,  it  undeniably 
fo  lows,  that  it  is  a  means  oi  regeneration  ;  because  the  viord 
of  God  is  the  essence  thereof.  Now.  he  must  either  deny,  that 
th?  water  has  any  connexion  with  the  word  ;  or  that  the  va  ord 
possesses  any  regenerating  virtues ;  or  else  own,  that  baptism  is 
a  means  of  regenei-ation.  The  first  he  cannot  deny,  without 
beinic  charged  with  having  a  silent  and  self-invented  baptisu! ; 
nor  the  second ;  for  he  has  already  acknowledged,  that  the 
word  possesses  regenerating  virtues:  hence,  whether  he  wi'A 
or  liot,  he  has  no  alternative,  but  to  confess  the  last,  or  bid  de- 
fiance to  conviction. 

I  sliall  now  proceed  te  examine  the  charge  he  brings,  page 
25  He  says,  "  If  Mr.  H.  had  produced  the  words  of  Pe- 
ter, or  any  of  the  inspired  writers,  to  prove  Ihat  water  bap- 
tism was  ever  called  an  incorruptible  holy  flood,  &c.  then  he 
Avould  have  had  some  ground  for  his  dogmatical  assertion,  i.  e. 
that  we  "  roundly  contradict  the  apostle.  "  But  as  we  only 
hav'  his  bare  assertion  'or  it,  there  is  no  arguing  against  it  ; 
bi-eause  it  is  not  required  of  us  to  prove  a  negat  ve. —  But  un- 
til Mr.  H.  can  pr -fluce  divine  authority,  to  shew  that  water 
in  baptism  is  made  equal  to  the  word  of  God,  and  also,  shew 
us  where  it  is  called  an  incorruptible  holy  flood,  &e. " 

\nswcr.  I  confess,  that  I  have  not  produced  the  v^ords  of 
any  inspired  writer,  whch  precisely  call  baptism  im  incoirup- 
tib'  ■  holy  (loofl  of  regeneration  ;  neither  do  I  know  o'"  vny 
pa«9ages,  which  do.    But  is  every  phrase^  that  caiiB©^  be  hmf^. 


-^fcrbatim  in  the  Bible,  there'ore  unscHptural,  and  without  au.- 
«i.)rity  ?  Not  only  what  is  verbatim  in  tlie  scriptures  ;  but  aU 
so  .1  ,  that  may  be  proved  i hereby,  is  true,  and  good  authori- 
ty'. But  whatsoever  is  repugnant  to  the  scriptures  is  positive^ 
]y  fii  se.  Should  nothing  be  true,  relative  to  this  matter,  but 
what  is  verbatim  in  the  Bible  ;  rhen  it  must  be  evident,  tliat^ 
the  greatest  part  of  Mr.  M's  pamphlet,  cannot  be  true  ;  be- 
cause it  abounds  with  expressions,  that  are  not  verbatini  in  the 
B  ble.  VV^ould  he  admit  such  logick  r  The  Unitarians  ar- 
gue; that  the  word  Trinity,  \s  not  to  be  iound  in  the  scrip- 
tures ;  hence  conclude,  that  this  doctrine  is  false.  I  suppose  Mr. 
M.  as  a  Methodist,  professes  himself  a  Trintarian.  In  wha(t^ 
manner  would  he  reply  to  the  Unitarians  ?  He  no  doubt,  ike 
al  correct  logician^,  would  answer  : —  we  know  that  the  pre- 
cise word  Trinity,  s  not  to  be  found  ;  but  we  can  produce  sun- 
dry sacred  texts,  which  prove,  that  there  is  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  they  all  equally  possess  ih© 
div'rte  perfections,  and  thus  are  one ;  which  involves  the  very 
idea  of  a  Trinity,  i  e.  the  unity  ot  the  three  Is  ii  not  suffi- 
cient, to  satisfy  every  honest  min',  when  I  prove,  that  the 
very  idea  o;  an  incorruptible  flood  of  regeneration,  is  ounded 
in,  ml  can  be  proved  by  the  scriptures  ;  although  it  be  not 
found  verbatim  ?  In  the  fourth  section  of  my  treatise,  I  pro- 
duced my  authority,  for  givingbaptism  this  venerable  appelia- 
lion.  But  Mr.  M  has  not  noticed  it  in  his  strictures.  I  shall 
now  nroduce,  the  lestmony  in  behalf  of  its  justification-  St» 
Paul,  n  his  epistle  to  Titus,  saith  chap.  8.  5,  6. —  *'  ISot  by 
works  of  righteousn^'ss  which  we  have  done,  but  according  to 
his  mercy  he  saved  us  bv  the  loashing  of  regeneration,  and 
renewing  o"'the  Holy  Ghost,  which  he  shed  on  us  abundantly 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour."  In  this  text  thi  apostU- in^ 
fo  ms  us,  that  God  saved  us,  by  a  loashing  of  regeneration. 
There  can  be  no  washing  without  a  liquid,  I  mean  without  wa- 
ter/ In  the  original  it  is  —  Icutrou  paliggenesias — loutron, 
derived  from  louo.  I  wash,  signifies  a  bath,  or  a  washing 
place  ;  and  baptism,  derived  from  baptize,  I  immerse  or 
wash  ;  also  signifies  a  washing.  Hence  washing  and  bapti- 
zing ai'C  synonymous.  Also  a  washing  of  regeneration  and 
a  baptism  of  regpneration  are  the  same.  As  washmg  is  the 
samf  as  baptizing  ;  does  it  not  undeniably  follo\'\ ,  tha*  the  a- 
postle  told  us,  that  God  saved  us  by  baptism,  (it  being  the 
sa  -le  thing  as  washing  And  as  there  is  no  othei-  ceremony, 
in  the  ehurch,  which  is  performed  with  water,  but  only  the 
Christian  baptism,  the  allusir>n  in  this  text,  must  c'ther  be  t» 
ftrc  same  ;  or  else  t«  Bothipg.     W  feat  can  b«  the  difi'er«nco  be- 


Hgveen  a  washing  and  a  flood  of  regeneration?  Either  eoo* 
sists  of  w.iter  ;  hence  are  the  same.  St.  Paa  ,  djds  nut  s.m», 
ply  call  it  a  washing;  bat  a  washing  oi  reg -ncration  ;  hence 
someihiiig,  by  which  one  may  be  regenLiated.  But  we  are 
n^t  regen  'rated  by  corruptible'  thing'^,  which  Mr,  M  aln.  ts  ; 
an<l  yet  ;  are  regenerated  by  a  washing,  or  flood  ;  htnce  it 
must  be  an  in  orrnpt  ble  washin;?,  not  becaus--  ol"  the  me  e 
wa!er  ;  but  because  "t'the  ineoriuptible  word,  with  which  it  i& 
coniiei'ted,  and  which  liveth  and  abi-Jeih  forever,  >oone 
will  dispute,  but  what  we  are  born  again  hvm  above  ;  hence 
this  washing  by  which  we  are  regeneiated,  is  .tiso  heavenly; 
all  this  amounts  to  an  inv^orrnptible,  heavenly  rlood  efvegene. 
ration.  It  inust  hence,  be  a  n^eans  ot  aiiministet  T.p.  the  spi. 
rit ;  for  without  that  n5  regeneration  can  ''C  etfected  The  A- 
post'e  ad  Is —  "  and  the  renewing  i»f  the  H  dy  Gh<>st "  Where 
there  is  a  renewing  a  previous  gift  is  p  esupposed  •  for  what 
has  never  been  criv<.'n  cannot  be  renewed.  If  the  Holy  Ghosfe 
is  renewed  he  .vas  previous'y  aHministeied  b}^^  the  w  .slung of 
regeneation.  As  b.«ptism  also,  seals  God's  covenant  ;  so  as 
be  las  oice  a'i:n":nistered  the  spiiit  by  virtue  or  the  same  :  so 
also  he  renews  the  -ame  gi'.'t.  Now,  who  with  pioprieiy  can 
charge  nie,  with  having  invented  the  idea  of  *'  a  heavenly  in- 
o-irruptibie  fl  )0  1  of  regeneration  ;  "  when  St  Paul  hir.-self 
speaks  of  a  washing  of  regeneration  ? 

M>'.  M.  in  a  sarcastical  manner  page  9,  and  SB,  calls  wa* 
ter  baptism  Henkei's  heavenly  tiood  ;  an<!  h  s  hi;!y  bapti^m. 
D  les  he  suppose  that  I  am  the  author  ot  baptism?  or  :hat  I 
have  been  describing  any  o  her,  but  such  as  all  •  hr  stians  ; 
yea  even  the  M' thodi  ts  themselves  use  :  i  e.  a  baptism  per- 
formed hi  the  name  of  the  holy  Trinity  with  v\ater  ?  How 
shocking  it  is  to  think,  that  Mr.  Joseph  Moore,  who  is  estee- 
med a  zealous  M'thodist  preacher,  could  deliberately  write, 
an:l  publish  to  the  world,  in  a  'anafua'^e  ve;y  vulgar  :  that  bap- 
tism, which  Christ  himself  in-^titutcd  was  Henkt'Fs  h  avenly 
flood  ;  his  holy  baptism  !  O  !  if  there  be  the  least  shani<  in 
hm,  let  him  blush  !  It  is  crucifyiniithe  blessed  Jt^sus  a  rcsh; 
andputtingr  him  to  an  open  shame,  to  ca*l  iiis  ow  n  holy  institu. 
tion,  Henkel's  heavenly  flood  !  Who  is  H  nke!  ?  A  mere  mor« 
tal  man,  with  Adam's  corrup  ion.  O  horrid  beyond  degree^ 
to  pl.ice  a  morial  in  (he  roo;n  of  almighty  God  !  Mr. 
IVIoore  !  w^ho  n  do  you  vili'y,  by  calling:  bantism,  Henk-  Ps 
heav'nly  flood?  Do  you  not  yourself  baptise?  and  do  not 
your  Methodi-t  brethren  the  same  ?  And  yet,  you  can  d<''ib- 
era^^e'v  an!  "n  ^hr  most  Tie'arious  langu:^ge  call  baptism,  Hrn- 
kcVs  heavenly  flood  I    At  the  fir*t  view,  it  eeeme  somewhat 


m 

sirange,  why  so  many  preachers,  particularly  arronp  the  Me- 
thovlis  »  speak  si;  con  cnipul)ie  oi  baptitni ;  aixi  yet,  hupti^c  all 
wh<-»  make  applica.  on  ;  not\\ithsta.  ciing,  ii  n;ay  n  ea^uleal•Iy 
bo  accountL^iJ  :or  ; — ihey  ki'OW  God  oioained.  unci  ChriM  ans 
revere  it,  an  I  they  would  not  be  countenanced,  as  a  pan  of 
Christ's  criurch,  with>  ut  it  ;  and  thus  ih.  y  make  this  biesfecd 
insutution.  per'ormcd  in  the  most  sacred  nanic,  their  pan.  er^ 
by  whim  they  impose  themselves  uj)on  the  Christian  ccnimu- 
nity  ;  Wiien  in  th,*  mean-wiiie.  tieir  hearts  are  filled  \Aith 
rancour  agauist  it  so  th>:t  their  mouttts  car.not  rehain,  from 
calling  it,  a  mere  outward  thing,  a  littie  water,  wiihort  anj 
vi'tue  ;  or  ike  Mr  VI  ,  to  elevate  the  blasphf^mrus  ciiinax, 
call  it  HLemcel's  heaven  y  flood,  or  his  ho!y  baptitm. 

M '.  M  says,  pag;*  6,  •*  V  iiter  baptism,  or  a;-  Mr.  Hen- 
kel  calls  it,  ■'  Ho'y  Baptism.'  is  not  regeneration,  &c  "  Ficra 
this  it  appears,  as  ii  only  I  cal!ed  it  ho  y  ;  hence  ISh.  M.  does 
not  ;  and  if  it  bo  my  heavenly  flood,  of  course  it  cannot  be 
b:>  y.  I  was  also,  f-redibly  inforn.eii  by  some  respectable  per- 
eo'is,  hit  one  of  Mr*  M's  brethren,  announced  from  the 
pulpit,  that  baptisiii  was  not  holy.  II  it  is  not  holy  then  if 
mast  be  common.  Th^y  must  also  conclude,  that  the  name 
of  G  )d  in  which  it  is  per  on >  ed,  is  not  ho  y  ;  although  the.y 
•a'l  u, ion  it.  in  heir  puMick  worship.  I  will  leave  the  rea- 
der to  make  his  own  conclusions. 


SECTION  V. 

^r.  M  in  «rd«r  to  invalidate  t)ne  of  my  principal  premises,  ftttempto  t* 
pio'  e,  that  the  name  of  God,  is  not  the  same  as  bimsel!.  His  argiimente 
ai  e  investigated  ;  and  it  is  shewn  that  God's  name  is  the  same  as  himself. 

In  the  third  section  of  my  treatise,  I  said  that  the  name  of 
God  was  the  same  as  himself;  and  then,  because  baptism  is 

Performed  in  it ;  it  wa-  the  gro-mrlwork  thereof.  Mr.  M  ju- 
iciously  anticipated^  that  if  this  proposition  %\as  true,  he  could 
find  no  room  V>  oppose  my  ecnelusions.  For  it  God's  name 
is  the  same  as  himseli,  and  as  this  napie.  as  must  be  confes- 
sed by  all,  is  the  ground-work  of  baptism  ;  it  wou'id  incontes- 
libly  o'low,  that  it  is  a  divine  performance,  that  we  are  bap- 
tised, by  God  himsel  ;  thouj-'h  he  df-es  it  through  agents  :  be- 
cause God's  name  which  is  hin  sell  is  in  it;  that  it  is  holy  for 
the  6a me  reason ;  and  that  it  can  as  little  be  an  embkin,  or  a 


S4 

ehaclow,  as  he  himself  is  ati  emb'em  or  a  shadow;  because 
Ilis  name  which  is  himself  is  in  it;&c.  Foi-  this  good  reason 
he  labours  to  prove,  that  the  name  of  God,  is  not  God  him- 
se  f:  knowing  ii  he  can  succeed,  no  matter  what  the  conse- 
qaences  might  otherwise  be,  my  superstructm'e  would  be  pros- 
to-atcd. 

Mr.  M.  says,  page  33,  34 —  "This  seems  very  strange  to 
me,  for  I  nad  always  understood  that  names  &  things  were 
different — that  the  name  was  one  hina,,  and  the  being  or 
thing  it  represents  was  another. — But  Mr.  H.  unites  them  to- 
gether, and  makes  them  one  and  the  same  ;  which  is  contrary 
to  fact.  Names  are  given  to  beings  and  things  by  general 
consent,  in  order  to  distinguish  one  from  another,  for  the  ben- 
efit of  society  and  convenience  of  conversation.  And  also, 
when  a  name  is  given  by  general  consent,  it  points  out  that 
being  or  thing  to  which  it  is  applied.  But  altliough  the  name 
distinguishes  and  poinds  out  the  being  or  thing  to  v\hich  it  is 
applied,  yet  the  name  is  n'^t  the  being  or  the  tiling  iiseif ;  nei- 
)ther  does  it  possess  the  nature  and  properties  which  the  being 
or  thing  itself  possesses.  Hence  difterent  names  are  some- 
times given  to  the  same  being  :  and  also  the  same  name  is  of- 
ten given  to  different  beings,  without  altering  the  nature  of 
th  >se  beings,  or  changing  one  into  the  other  by  the  different 
app  ications  of  the  same  name.  Thus  the  supreme  being  a- 
niong  as,  is  railed  God,  Lord,  Jahovah,&c  ;  among  the  Jews, 
I  AM  or  Jehovah  ;  anong  the  Greeks  Theos  ;  among  the 
Latins  Dous,  &c.  But  these  names  are  not  the  supreme  be- 
iug  himself;  ii  they  were,  there  would  be  as  many  supreme 
beings  as  there  are  names  given. —  Hence  the  absurdity  of  the 
idea  that  God's  name  is  God  himself. 

Further.  The  same  naoic  is  often  given  to  different  be- 
ings, without  altering  their  nature,  or  changing  them  into  other 
beings.  Thus  the  numes  God  and  Lord,  are  often  applied  to 
in  n,  to  angels,  &c.  as  Paul  says; — There  are  God*;  many, 
anfl  Lords  many.  But  certainly  this  does  not  alter  the  nature 
of  those  men  and  angels,  and  make  supreme  beings  of  them: 
Tio  ;  th''y  remain  men  and  angels  just  as  they  were  " 

Answer.  It  is  true,  a  man  or  a  thing,  may  have  a  name, 
iand  yet,  not  possess  the  nature,  or  properties,  which  it  origi 
iially  indicatt^s.  and  in  this  respect  is  not  the  name  itself  But. 
this  does  not  applv  to  God.  This  argument  is  not  agreeab'e 
to  the  rules  of  'ogic^k  ;  tor  it  has  more  in  the  conclusion,  thau 
what  i'^  contained  in  the  ps-emi^es.  Mr.  M.  attempts  to  shew, 
that  God's  name  is  not  G»d  himsell  ;  and  as  a  reason  he  as- 
^gns :  that  names  arc  given  by  general  consent,  in  order  tt. 


•listinguish  one  'Vom  another ;  and  that  the  name  is  not  the  bs? 
rng,  f)r  tiling  itsei  ;  no:  possesses  the  same  nature  and  propep- 
^cs  ;  an>l  Liiat  diiterent  names  are  sometimes  given  to  the  same 
ll.'.ng;  and  also  the  sam  na  ne  is  often  given  to  ditieient  be- 
ings, without  alti  ring  the  nature  oi' those  beings,  &c. 

Now  if  a  I  this  be  aihiiitted  ;  yet  is  itn^t  proper  to  apply  the 
sameti'  God.  Things  and  beings  in  general,  constitute  his  pre- 
mises, and  God,  s\  h  >  bi.'a^-s  no  analogy  to  any  thing  is  brought 
into  the  conclusion;  vvhc!»  al  amounts  to  a  sophism  The 
Unit  u'ians  can  frame  as  good  an  argument  as  this  is,  against 
the  T.  imtarians. 

Tiey  can  with  equal  propriety  say :  three  men  or  beings, 
cannot  be  one  man,  or  being  ;  therefore  three  divine  persons, 
cannot  be  one  God  VVoul'!not  every  judicious  Trinirarian 
say  :  this  is  a  sophism  ;  for  what  ana  ogy  is  there  between  men 
an  1  God  ?  what  have  men  to  do  in  the  premises,  and  God  in 
ih<'.  conclusion  ?  It  is  not  true,  that  God  ha'^  derived  his  nanie 
by  common  consent,  like  men  do  ;  for  he  has  revealed  his  t>vvn 
proper  name  to  Moses,  railing  himse!f  I  AM  that  I  AM. 
Exod.  3,  I '.  Again,  aUhough,  men  may  have  names,  *  and 
Bot  possess  the  nature,  and  properti<"s,  which  those  names  ;m- 
p'y  ;  yet  this  is  not  the  case  \v  h  God  ;  for  he  in  reality  pos- 
sesses all,  his  name  implies.  His  name  implic-  divine  perfec- 
tions ;  but  Nvho  dare  tleny,that  he  possesses  al^  such?  It  is 
a'so  admitted,  that  some  men  and  a:ige!s.  bear  the  nan-e  of 
G  '(i.  Nvhen  in  reality  they  are  not  God  ;  but  this  is  no  rea  on, 
that  God  bears  the  same  name  and  is  not  uhat  the  nane  im- 
p!i<  s.  This  would  be  an  odd  conclusion.  Men  and  Angels, 
on'y  in  a  metaphoi-ical  sense, bear  the  name  oi  G  d  ;  because 
th  v  fa  ntly  imitate  him,  in  consequence  of  their  offices  and  dig- 
nities ;  hence  Lord  and  God,  are  not  their  proper  and  peculi- 
ar names  Whenevei-  Mr.  M  shall  prove,  that  the  names 
L>rd,  and  God.  are  th"  pi'oper  and  original  names,  for  men  and 
angels ;  then  only  can  he  use  this  argument  to  some  advan- 
tage. 

*I  mast  also  reply  to  Mr.  M.  when  he  says  "  the  supreme 
being  among  us  is  called  God,  Lord,  Jehovah;  &c.  aniong 
th'  jews  I  AM  or  Jehovah  ;  among  the  Greeks  Theos  ;  a- 
mon;!  the  Litins  Deu-.&c.  But  these  names  are  not  ihe  su- 
preme being  himself;  if  they  uere,  there  ^^ould  be  as  many 
supreme  beings  as  there  are  names  given  him.  ''  If  this  argu- 
ment be  analyzed  it  will  stand  thus  :  li  all  those  names  ^^  ere 
G  id  himself ;  then  there  a  onld  be  an  English  God,  who  ia 
ca'ledGod  and  Lord  ;  a  Hebre\A  God,  I  AM,  or  Jehovah; 
a  Greek.  God,  Theos ;  and  a  Latin  God,  Deus,  &c.     But  does 

D 


not  Mr.  M.  plainly  sep,  that  it  is  the  same  narne,  only  in  dif. 
ferent  laM2:uiiges  r  Hi'  m  ght  as  we  i  argue:  a  man  in  Eng- 
lish, is  man  ;  .n  Laiin,  Vir  ;  in  Gi-efk  A.neer  ;  therefore  it 
cannot  be  the  sail  •  man,  B  it  no  matter  how  many  names, 
Gjtl  m  ly  h.^Av  in  ihe  same  lan2:uage,  they  only  inc  ude  his 
sev^eral  perfections  ;  and  as  a'l  his  perfections  do  not  constituie 
several  G  >;ls  neither  do  several  names. 

Althougli.  men  may  not  possess  the  natures  and  properties, 
which  the  r  nai^^es  imp^y  ;  yet, a  man's  nim^ , by  an  arbitrary 
denomin.ition,  bocomes  his  proper  name,  and  peiuhar  to  his 
person,  no  matter,  what  it  mi^y  have  ori'inally  signified.  When 
a  man's  n  \me,  's  >alled  in  a  court  oi  justice,  it  is  evident  that 
his  person  is  called.  When  the  judgi-  passes  the  sentence  of 
death,  against  any  culprit,  he  do  s  it  by  naming  him  ;  but  not 
on'y  the'  representation  of  the  eu'prit  ;  but  his  person  is  to  be 
executed.  This  shews,  that  a  man's  name  in  law,  is  the  same 
as  his  person.  According  to  Mr.  M.  the  name  is  only  a  r  p- 
rf^entation  of  a  man  or  boino; ;  for  he  says,  "  the  name  is  one 
thing,  nnd  i]vi  being  or  thing  it  represents  another. "  The 
verb  "  to  represent, ^^  .'dignifies,  to  exhibit,  or  to  show  ;  and  its 
substantive ''  representation,  "  signifies  an  image,  or  iikeness. 
If  names  are  to  represent  men,ov  course  they  must  shew  us 
their  sta*ures  and  comnex'ons  ;  otherwise  they  could  repre- 
sent nothins: ;  for  a  man  without  any  shape  or  colour,  would  be 
nithing.     If  so  ;  thsn  we  have  according  to  this  theory,  seen 


*  Vo':e.  Mr.  >T.  says,  paoje  34,  «•  OiT-e  more.  The  term  Henkel  in 
Dutch,  nr'an-^  a  chicken  ;  hnr  I  reckon  that  we  could  hardlv  iret  theau'-hor 
of  the  heavenh'  fl  jod  lo  helieve  iha  he  is  a  chicken,  herau  e  he  bears  that 
natrp.  Thas  yo  i  -^ee  (he  g  eat  absu  div  oi'  the  idea  that  God's  name  is 
God  himse'i'.  "  An-wet.  If]  had  the  very  same  natu'e  as  a  chicken,  I 
wo  lid  '-e'-tainlv  he  whut  the  name  chicken  iniplies;  hence  thenime 

Bi'  it  is  very  i  111)6  tineni  to  a.  jjly  this  to  God.  or  hi-  name;  for  Mr.  M. 
da'c  no'  'env  but  what  all  ihe  '  ei  fections.  which  the  name  of  God  i:nplies, 
God  al-o  posse- -es  ;  &.  i.s  'he; e''b:e  him-elf.  Hi-  German  criticism  is  very 
polished  indeed  !  ilenkeli-  no  chicken.  Ui>  tiue.  some  .-Vmei  ican  Ger- 
mans, call  thai  f>\v!  h'nre  ;  hut  not  Ae«' e/.  The  proper  name  is  Att^n  ;  and 
in  the  plual,  hiehne>-  If  I  knew  no  mo'e  o^  the  Geiman  langua-^e  than 
Wr  .M  f  vvoi'd  he  ashamed  to  make  any  criticism.  He  ought  lo  blu-h, 
for  int  odticrng -^uch  a  piie.ile  thing,  when  ti  eating  on  a  sacred  sulject. 
Jji  L  a-  im  ecile  is,  whUhesays  in  the  sentence  before  "  The  name  of 
So'oTion  wa-  given  lo  the  son  of  David,  kmg  of  Israel  ;  but  the  name  w.is 
not  the  man  him-el',  because  the  e  arenumbe.s  that  bear  that  name  in  our 
day  ,  bat  they  are  not  .Solomons,  i  e  not  sons  of  David,  nor  kings  o!  Is- 
rae'  no*-  possess  the  wi-dom  he  pos'-e-'^ed.  "  Answer.  We  know  that  aU 
tb"  SoloTjon"^  in  the  \vo'  Id  .t  e  not  the  Solomon  who  was  the  son  of  David. 
Btit  what  hi-  fc!ii>  10  do  with  God?  He  posse&aes  all  his  name  iaipUes;aQd 
ilUierefoie  himself. 


27 

fcke  \m&3;e  or  representation,  of  every  man,  and  wom^n .  wiiose 
name  vv.;  have  ever  seen  in  print,  or  in  writ  ug-,  or  ever  leai  d 
p:-nijunced  ;  though  we  cannot  te!l  what  size,  or  shape  they 
weri?  ;  whether  dwarfs  or  giants  ;  whether  comely  or  de  o,m« 
ed. 

Hen^e  the  aSsurdity  of  na;nes  being  representations  of  men. 

Bi!;  n)  in  ui's  na^ne,  is  so  p 'c  diarly  himself,  as  God's  mime 
is  G )  i  hiinsi'lt";  because  a  man's  name  becomes  his  ov  n.  dy 
an  arbitrary  denomination  ;  but  God  originally  posstsses  in 
biaiself,  what  his  name  implies,     God  is  called  in 

HEBREW —  IN    ENGLISH  — 

Jehov  ih  asher  Jehovah.  I  am  that  I  am. 

Adonai.  Thf.  Lord  of' all  things. 

Aleim  or  Elohim.  IVho  i^  to  be  icor^h/pped. 

Zebaolh.  Of  hosts 

lah  Who  shall  he  and  was* 

El  Soon.  Sup'^eme  God 

Amen*  In  everlasting  truth* 

IN    GREEK —  IN  ENGLISH — 

Kurios*  Lord* 

Theos*  God* 

Would  Mr.  M.  venture  to  deny,  that  God  'S  real'y  I  am 
that  £  am  ;  that  is  immutual,  eternal  ;  thai  he  is  Lord  otall 
things,  &c.  as  the  above  ti  les  imp'y  ?  I  suppose  not  ;  for  if 
he  did,  he  would  at  on-e,  deny  God's  perfecti' ns,  and  reduce 
htm  to  a  nominal  [dol.  But  if,  as  it  nmst  be  adn;itted,  God 
possesses  all  the  perfections,  \\hich  the  above  na'^  e-  include  ; 
now  can  it  ot'ierwise  be,  but  those  names  must  be  God  him- 
s^dt"?  Now  M".  M-  must  e  ther  deny,  that  t'-e  name  of  God 
includes  the  divine  per'ections  ;  or  that  God  pos'^e  se>;  su -h  ; 
or  else  admit,  that  the  name  of  God  iS  himself.  He  cannot 
with  truth,  deny  the  first  ;  because  the  name^  a--  a 'ready  ex- 
hibited, declare  divine  perTections  ;  and  to  say  that  God  does 
not  possess  a'l  such,  is  blasphemy.  T!ius  the  name  of  God, 
includiog  all  divine  perfcf^tions  ;  and  God  him«el*' possessmg 
such,  it  follows  irrefragubly,  that  the  name  of  God  is  God 
himself. 

An  1  to  the  question,  *  What  is  the  name  of  Jems?'  I  an- 
swer, it  ishmse'.f;  what  he  real'y  is,  Wonder'n',  -Vl'ghty  God, 
Gil  with  us  Isa  c.  9,  6— c.  7,  1 1.  His  tit'es  as  Saviour, 
P-ophet,  Priest  and  Kin<r :  his  nc'e'tions,  and  deity  :  his  me- 
^atorial  character^  his  righteousness  and  merits  are  included 


iahis  Tiaroe^  Bat  according  to  my  oppOBent,  this  rja.»ie  i? 
Bathing  iiiire,  than  an  image,  or  representauoii,  made  oi  the 
letre."S,  tUat  compose  the  wo.  d  Jesu?,  exc  usive  oi  his  nature 
an  I  per  actions.  Bat  to  i:he  spiricual  \v\>i  shipper  the  name  of 
Je-^as  in<-lu  ling  h:s  -livine  perfections  and  m. diatorial  charac- 
fei-  presents  to  his  mi  id  me  most  heautital  object  and  excites 
in  ais  soul  the  most  lapturous  em  )ti  ^ns. 

If  according  to    tiy  opp  -nent,  the  name  of  God  is  not  God^ 
and  names  only  represent  pe  s  ns  o:  be  ngs  ;  then  God's  name^ 
represen  s  God  ;  heiue  it  must  siiCA   us  his  shape,  and    ike- 
Tiess  ;  eidier  by  the  letters  which  compose  it,  or  the  sound  of 
it,  when  pronounced  ;    or  else,  it  cou'd  not  represent  him. 
Bd    G  'd's  nature  is  incomprehensib'e,  cannot  be  represented 
by  any  simi'itule;  but  what  is  ca  culaied  to  degrade  him; 
to  eng^ender  and  foster  erronious  notions  o.  him  ;  and  to  imi- 
tate the  pagans,  who  changed  the  glory  of  the  incorrupt. b  e 
Gil  into  an  image  made  like  to  coriu|jtible  man.  &c.     It  is 
assigned  as  a    reas  n  why    Israe'    shou'd    make  no  iniage 
O^  God.;    '*  6rcaM>e   they    saw    no  mnnntr  of  .similitude, 
ivhen  he  spake  to  them    n  Horeh.  out  of  the  mid^t  of  the 
fire  ;'*   and  it  is  added,  "  /e.si  ye  corrupt  yourselves,  8fC.  ^ 
D^uu  4,  15,  16.     But  to  worship  Go  I's  name,  \Ahich  accor- 
ding to  Mr.  M.  is  not  God  himsel  ,  but  on^y  his  representa- 
feon,  would  according  to  this  notion,  be  idolatry  :  for  assured- 
ly^an  image  used  in  worship,  is  a  teacher  ol  lies ;  it  repre- 
sents to  u>,  that  the  et'M'na!  God  is  s'nii  ar  to  something  that 
isCreated  •'  To  whom  will  ye  liken  God?     O   what  likeness 
\\\\\  ye  compare  unto  hi  >' ?  "  Isa.   iO.  18.     When   Mr.  M. 
prays,  docs  he  not  cail  on  the  name  oi   God?     Hence  as  he 
gays,  th  s  name  is  not  Go  '  hims'  f ;  he  consequendy  does  not 
in  his  prayer,  ca'l  on  God  himself;  but  omy  on  !ns  represen- 
tation ;  hence  hi-  worship  is  idolatry.     If  I  was  a  Roman  Cath- 
olick  Bishop,  I  would  pi'csent  him  with  a  golden  meda;  ;    'or 
the  CK^raoi'dina'T  service*;  he   rendered  to  my   cause.     As  a 
B-Tnan,  I  wouid  worship  G  )d  through  images  ;  noi  that  I  hc- 
lies'ed  they  were  G  )d  ;  bu'  on'y  his  representatives,  like  the 
Israelites,  who  did  not  believe,  the  golden  calf  was  Jehovah  ; 
bnt  only  the  representative,  through  wh  ch  to   worship  h^m  ; 
even  so  would   I    vorshi  i  the  Saviour  through  a  crucifix.     If 
any  of  the  pritestants  would  impeach  me  \^  ith  ido'atry .  I  \n  ould 
appea  .  to  the  tiibunal  of  Mr.  Josepii  Moore,  who  pa'^ses  for 
a  protestant  himse'f,  and  a  foe  to  the  Rnmim  cause  ;yet  u  oud 
^,  'Tr\ost  eonfidently  an'icipate,  his  verdict  in  my  'avour :  in  as 
tnuch,  a":  he  has  ah-eady  manifested  the  most  favourab  e  symp- 
toms ;  in  that,  he  has  undertaken  to  prove  agamst  David  B^'- 


m 

£;!,  that  f be  name  of€rod,  which  a'l  protestants  worship,  is 
nn  G»  1  himseii;  bu  is  on  y  to  i-epieseiu  him  ;  so  that,  ;.  Gud 
ma)  be  voishipped  ihr  )ugh  ihis  rop.-oscntatiun  ;  couseqiuMitly 
Romans  may  worsh  p  God  through  or  by  oJier  embiems ; 
911  h  as  the  crucifix,  &c. 

Mr.  M  havi ng  de  lied,  thai  the  naiie  of  G)d.  is  God  him- 
sell,  he  liad  no  other  chance  le't,  bit  to  say,  names  represent 
beings  and  things  ;  and  thus  has  unhappily  ninde  the  name  of 
G  >d  a  repi-es^ntation.  N  >vv,  let  us  compare  his  logiek  >..  ith 
Mie  scriptures  ;  and  see  whether  it  be  consistent :  The  reatler 
is  requested,  in  cadingthe  tollowingtexts  of  sci-ipture,  where 
the  name  of  God  or  Christ  occurs,  to  substitute  the  word, 
•■*  representation  "  tor  the  word  "  name  ;  "  by  which  he  w  11 
p^rc  -ive  tlie  impropriety  of  Mr.  M's  theory  more  strikingly. 
To  assist  the  reader  in  this,  I  shall  every  time  p'ace  the  word 
''  representation  "  betvveen  a  parenthesis  (  ). 

"  For  whosoever  shall  eall  up'>n  the  name  (  representation  ) 
of  God  sha!  be  saved  "  R)n.  10,  J3 — "  But  to  as  many 
as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he  power  to  become  the  sons 
of  God,  even  to  them  that  believe  -  n  his  name. "  (  lepre.-ena- 
tion)  John  1,  12 — '•  Wherefore  God  also  hath  highly  exal- 
ted him,  and  given  him  a  name  (  rep  esentation  )  which  is  a- 
bove  every  name  ;  (  representation  ) ;  that  at  the  name  (  rep- 
resentation )  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  &c.  Phil. 
3,  9 —  "  A.nd  thou  sha't  cal'  his  name  (  representation  )  Jesus ; 
for  he  shall  save  his  people  "  Matth.  1.  21 —  ''  AnM  in  his  name 
(representation)  shall  the  Gentiles  trust,  "ch.  I'i,  21 — '*  Where 
two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name,  (repres^nta- 
tion)  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them."  Matth.  18,  20—"  Go 
ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations, baptizing  them  in  the  name 
{representation)  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Ho  y  Ghost ;  &c.  "  Matth.  28,  19— •<  Our  Father  which  art 
in  heaven,  Hallowed  be  thy  name  (representation  )  "  Luk.-.ll 
2 —  '*  Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  (representation  )  of  llie 
Liord  thy  God  in  vain  :  for  the  Lord  will  not  hold  him  gi-ilt- 
less  that  taketh  his  name  (  represent  jtion  )  in  vain.  "  Kxofl.  20, 
■7 —  "  N'^ither  is  there  sfdvation  in  any  other,  for  thei-e  i-  no 
©ther  name  (  representation  )  under  heaven  given  among  men, 
"whereby  we  must  be  saved  "  Acts.  4,  12. 

The  Ike  impertinency  and  nons.  nse  will  be  seen  in  the  ap- 
plication of  this  g'oss,  to  all  those  passages,  which  have  the 
name  o'  God  or  Jesus. 

\ll  this  is  •sufficient  to  prove  tliat  the  name  of  God  is  God 
^im-e'.f.  This  being  established  the  argument  with  re-peet  io 
kp.ptism assumes  a  very  majestic  and  invineible  appeaiaucp. 


•Fhis  name  being  the  ground-work  of  It,  it  Is  evident,  that  there 
can  be  id  sa,)erijr  baptism  •  for  wbat  can  h.'  supeno;  to  God's 
na  m^  w  i  :ii  s  hiiiiie  f  ?  H  )\v  is  it  p  )s-.ible  tor  baptihiii  to  he 
a  n^.-e  emMim,  or  a  repr^'Neii  arrin,  when  God's  \iamc  is  the 
grjuiKl-work  th-.-reot"?  O'  ho  v  lamentabl'  is  it !  ^hat  thou- 
sands will  not  see  life,  and  salvation,  Dt'fered  in  it ;  nor  even 
estee^n  the  b  essed  nain.^  of  G  » 1  ;  but  g;ize  (o  heaven'lor  a  su- 
p:;riar  baptisii;  as  if  ihey  coal!  .'iet  s:)m 'thing  superior  to 
G  >  I's  n  ;.  n-i,  vvi  e'l  is  h  .nse'f.  O  h  )vv  th \y  despise  nis  hles- 
6  'd  >M  n  •  ill  this  institation  !  T-h>ucrii  the  scriptures,  so  'irequeet- 
\y  incd!  :a  e,  that  we  should  believe  in,  and  call  upOn  this 
Hain^.  Why  n3t  also  believe  in  this  name  when  we  si  e  it  in 
baptism  ? 

The  6113  n'es  to  this  do^^trin*,  who  are  constantly  preaching 
Hp  shaiows  an  I  eiible  ns,  in  oi-der  to  reinove  th:'  substance, 
have  but  t-.vo  wavs  to  fi^iht  against  this  blessed  truth  :  they 
mast  either,  wil  "ul'y  and  contrary  to  the  scriptures  deny,  that 
flie  nam^  of  G)  I  co  isritutes  the  essence  of  baptism  ;  oi-  e'se 
betake  h^'n-elves  to  this  piti  ul  re'uge.  that  the  name  of  God 
is  n  )t  God  himself;  bat  only  a  representation,  and  thus  intio- 
dlaee  an  ido'atrous  worsh.p  :  and  construe  all  the  texts,  which 
speak  of  believ'nsi;  in,  and  ca  ling  on  God'*;  name,  to  mean 
fh.il  we  shoal  1  b;»,':ieve  in,  &  cal'  on  a  r^pr'*sent;it  on  ;  v\  hich 
shocks  comm  in  sense,  and  is  abominable  in  tlie  sight  ol  the 
spiritual  worshipper. 


SECTION  VI. 

Mr  M  attempts  to  shew,  that  my  reasoning  is  not  conclusive,  when  I  say, 
that  God  effect^  g  eat  things  by  simple  means;  because  the  instances  | 
produced,  only  re^er  to  hi-  extraordinary  woikins  &c.  But  it  is  shewn, 
that  God  also  works  ordinarily  by  apparent  simple  means.  He  undertakes 
to  prove,  becau^e  theie  are  different  means,  to  obtain  the  same  end;  that 
therefore,  baotism  cannot  be  the  means,  &c.  This  is  investigated.  He  ar- 
gues, that  sometimes  all  the  means  fail  This  is  shewn  to  be  inconect. 
l^astly,  it  is  shewn,  that  if  some  of  his  arguments  be  true,  that  the  neces- 
sity of  a  Wcitten  revelation  is  superseded. 

^  In  my  tr'^atise  I  had  stated,  that  God  effects  great  thing-shy 
simole  m'^ans;  from  which  1  concluded,  that  aUhouih,  bap- 
tism appears  si'nnle  in  itself;  notwith'^tandins^  bv  it.  great 
things  may  be  etTected.     To  elucidate  this,  sundry  instanc«sof 


SI 

the  kind  are  produced:  such  as,  wl.cn  Mo?es  brd  Fir'ttcn  the 
rock,  to  snpp'y  the  Israelites  \v;ih  \Naici  :  vhtr  'hej  were 
cured  by  looking"  on  a  bri.zon  seipnit.  am:  ^nar  an  hy  wa^h- 
inghimselt  sevtiuinifs  ir  Joiciun  Crtl^sJSi.  ^.  cbseives, 
p,  18 —  *'  To  show  the  absuidi'j  ot  Bvi.  B's  ita^cnii  j>  on  this 
subject,  I  would  obscive,  thai  he  cail^  ll;}tI^n  the  CKiiiaiy 
niean^-- ot  resreneratit  li,  and  cne  ai^rntnt  he  brings  to  piove 
it  is,  '<  that  God  etieots  gieat  ti'irg^  by  ^n  alln  tans,"  as  stated 
in  the  above  quoted  p  aces.  Bnt  1  tli  k  diit^  wi'lpicve  agtirst 
his  dn'trine,  instead  of  tor  it.  Ft  r  ah  those  pUees  an  not  the 
ordinary  method  o?'  God's  working, liut  are  extraordinaiy  cases, 
whert^in  GoH  dispayed  his  niraciilous  pov,  er  cut  ot  his  (cm- 
mon  and  ordinary  method  of  uorking.  Thereto:e  to  biing 
thvn  to  prove  God's  ordinary  method,  is  certainly  foreign  Inm 
the  point.  The  argument  put  into  a  syUogistical  forn^,  v^culd 
stand  thus: — B  «ptism  is  God's  ordinary  means  of  regcneiating 
the  son! — because  God  in  certain  extraordinary  cases,  e^erl9 
his  miracul'Uts  and  wonder  uorking power,  whereby  be  efiVetS 
great  things  by  -imall.O'itot'  his  common  and  ordinal y  method; 
Thercfort',  baptism  is  God's  ordin;u•^  r  cans,  &c,  Jscw  yofli 
may  see  the  absurdity  of  the  argximent !!  " 

Answer.  This  statement  is  incouevt.  I  did  not  produce 
thn-e  extraordinary  cases,  with  a  view  to  prove,  that  traptism 
is  the  means  ot  regeneration  :  but  only  to  shew,  that  if  God 
could  and  did  effect  great  things  by  simp'e  means  in  extraor- 
dinary case«,  'hat  it  was  not  absurd,  to  believe  that  he  cftecteS 
regi^neration  by  a  means  rqua'ly  simp'e.  This  is  evident 
from  whnt  I  said  ;  viz  "Now  if  God  connected  so  great  a 
virtue  whh  a  rod  and  a  rock,  w hy  n  ay  he  nol  also  connect  bis 
srraee  with  water  in  baptism?  See  Heavenly  fioc  d,  p  5, 
There  is  a  great  difference  between  saying  :  that  ii  God  ccold 
effect  great  th'ngs  by  litile  n^eans.  in  extraordinaiy  eases,  that 
he  could  do  the  same  in  regenerating  a  soul :  and  sa}  ing^ 
that  because  he  performs  gieat  things  by  sin-pie  nieans,  in  ttu- 
raculous  cases  ;  that  thcrelbre.  bap'i^m  is  the  nieans  o'  re- 
g»*neration  The  foriner,  and  not  the  latter,  I  affirmed,  va  h^ck 
Mr  M.  palms  on  me  unjustly,  to  n^ake  my  argument  apprar 
ridiculous.  But  will  he,  or  any  other  man  deny,  that  ii  God 
coil'd  and  did  perform  great  things  by  simple  means,  in  extra- 
ordinary cases,  that  it  is  congenial  to  reason,  to  believe  that 
he  does  the  same  in  his  ordinary  method  ?  Mr  M.  himself 
ai'n^'ts,  ''that  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  is  the  ordinary 
meatus  of  reg -neration  '  p.  20  What  wouid  he  call  the 
pr 'achins:  of  the  gospel  ?  a  great  and  lofty  ;  or,  a  simple  a!  d 
ai^parently  a  foolish  means  ?    St.  Paul  answers  the  latter  in  the 


82 

aSfirmative,  when  he  says,  "he  was  sent  t«  preach  the  gospel ; 
n»t  \^  :th  vvisdum  of  \\ord>,  lest  the  cross  oi  Gh.ist  ^houl(t  be 
ma'ie  oi  none  eflect  For  the  preaching  oi  the  cioss  is  to  them 
th-.t  perish  ;uo'ishiie<s  ;  but  unto  us  v\hich  aie  saved  ii  i;-  the 
p  )\N  er  oV  God."  1  Cror  1.17.18.  According  to  this,  preach- 
ing ;)  the  gospel  is  cai  ed  loclis-hness  ;  or  so  it  appnns  ri  the 
STglii  o.  the  \A0;ld  :  because  it  is  treqoently  done  by  n  en^, 
\\\v  so  persons  ap|  ear  ct  nttn"pt  ble,  and  nhose  demeancr.  is 
n- 1  like  that  o!  a  polite  dancing  master  :  and  whose  ^tyle  is 
not  fraught  with  prmpous,  theatrical  diction  to  phase  the  ear^ 
with  ut  touching  the  heart  ;  yet,  gieat  things  are  efleded  by 
this  ordinary  method  ;  or  sinners  are  saved  and  the  wisdc  ta 
of  the  vvorUI  confounded.  As  'oolish.  as  the  preaching  (-f  t};e 
g>-i)e'.  ap|iears  in  the  sight  of  the  world  ;  equally  so  bnptisn^ 
as  the  means  of  roeeneration.  appears  in  the  sij^ht  of  ^'i .  M. 
and  of  many  thousands,  \\hopio'ess  the  Christian  Religion. 
P'rhaps  the  little  'Aatci.  and  the  hw  words,  which  constitute 
bajitism,  reflcc'  'ike  upon  an  ob!ique  mirror,  foolishness  upoa 
his  lo;ty  imagination  so  that  h,s  intel'ects  cannoi  discover  ia 
it  <livine  \\isdom  That  he  has  Ireqnently  rf presented  the 
d  '-tiine  of  bapti<^m.  a.^^  taught  h\  me,  as  absurd,  unreii^tna- 
bl  ■  ;  ht^nce  foohsh  ;  that  it  might  have  done  in  the  dark  ages 
O;  MOpery  :  that  it  s  suipiij-mg.  tha'  any  man  shou'd  bt  lu  ve^ 
and  advance  it.  in  oui-  en  igl  lened  day  ;  ai^d  that  such  as  de- 
pend on  it.  !e.;n  on  a  broken  staft  ;  al'  amounts  to  no  valid  ob- 
jection. \^  hilst  he  c;:n  pi-oc'uce  no  better  test  n  cny,  tbaa 
meie'y.  because  baptism  is  party  an  outvA  ard  thing  ;  heice 
ap^'avent'y  wrak.  and  base  ;  I  glory  in  having  espoused  ibis 
foolish  canst.  God  who  is  the  author  of  the  foo'ishn<ss  of 
p.\  ac!'ing  th''  gosp'l ;  is  also  the  author  of  this  foolish  baptism. 
St  Pan!  saith — ''  But  GofI  hath  chosen  the  foo'ish  thini's  of 
tlie  world  to  con'^ound  the  wise;  and  God  hath  chosen  the 
W'ak  thirgs  of  the  \\  orld  to  contouru!  the  th  ngs  which  are 
mighty  ;  and  base  thirgs  of  the  uorld.  and  things  vvliich  are 
despised,  hath  God  chosen,  yea  i<nd  things  >\  hich  are  not.  (o 
br  iig  to  nouijlit  things  that  are  ;  that  no  ^esh  shou'd  g'ory 
in  his  presence.  "  1  Cor.  1,  27,  2H.  Whilst.  Mr.  M.  atteippt- 
cd  to  represent  b;iptism.  ;;s  a  mere  out\^  ard.  vseak  th  ng  ;  and 
the  doctrine,  '.vhich  ascribe?  to  it,  legeneiaiing  virtues,  as  tool- 
ishncss,  has  unauires.  establisbc<I  it  as  true  ;  lor  the  text  here 
q'  ted  ronfirms.  that  God  las  chosen  weak.  base,  foolish,  and 
despised  thinszs.  tn  coi  'oord  things  th;it  are  mighty.  As  bi.p- 
tis-  is  instUuted  bv  God  himsel',  and  Mr  M.  representirv  it, 
as  a  V  enk,  ^ut\^a'd  ih'rg,  I  u'ust  conclude  with  the  apost'e, 
that  God  has  chosen  such  a  despised  thing,  for  a  vei-y  great 
purpose,. 


This  foolishness  in  chosing  such  weak  and  despised  mearts  j 
is  nothing  but  wisdom  witii  God.  Weak,  mortal  men,  are 
eonstrained  to  make  such  preparations,  and  employ  such 
means,  that  are  adequate  to  the  end,  they  intend  to  obtain  :  but 
God,  because  lie  is  omnipotent,  and  alhvise,  has  no  need  lor 
all  this  ;  but  the  most  contemptible  means,  answers  hinj  ;  and 
when  his  purposes  are  achieved,  they  cannot  be  ascribed  to 
the  magnitude  of  the  means  ;  and  thus  his  own  tinger  is  ren- 
dered conspicuous.  Such  base  means,  when  great  ihings  are 
efifected  by  them,  are  also  well  calculated,  to  moriify  the  pride 
of  the  great  men  of  the  world  ;  without  which  they  cannot 
be  clothed  with  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  How  it  morti- 
fies proud,  corrupted  reason  to  be  confounded  and  made  a  fool, 
by  the  foolish  preaching  ,f  Christ,  and  him  crucified  ;  and  to 
be  convinced,  that  such  a  base  and  weak  thing,  as  water  bap- 
tism should  be  a  means  of  salvation  !  We  hear  the  self-wise, 
among  all  sects  exclaim,  with  vehement  warmth  and  confi- 
dence :  it  is  foolishness  to  believe,  that  so  weak  a  thing,  as  an 
outward  baptism,  should  be  a  means  of  regeneration  ;  it  is  no- 
thing but  a  mere  representation  of  a  better  baptism  1  Ah  ! 
my  friend,  I  know,  that  baptism  in  your  sight,  appears  weak, 
base,  and  despised  ;  so  that  your  unhallowed  reason,  environ- 
ed with  pride,  and  degrading  passions,  tells  you  that  it  cannot 
be  the  means  of  regeneration  ;  though  God  be  the  author  of 
it :  but  remember,  he  has  chosen  even  such  weak  things  to 
confound  your  wisdom,  that  you  may  not  glory  iuhis  pres- 
ence. 

Mr.  M.  says,  p.  14  "  Different  means  may  be  used,  that 
will  lead  to  the  same  end.     For  instance,  the  husbanc'man, 

E loughs,  plants,  cultivates,  &c.  in  order  to  raise  a  support  for 
imselt  and  family  ;  but  how  many  are  there,  who  follow 
other  means  in  order  to  obtain  the  same  end  ?  Such  as  the 
means  of  merchandizing,  mechanical  business,  or  some  pro- 
fession ;  as  doctors,  lawyers,  teachers,  &c — All  or  kny  of 
these  ditferent  means  well  followed,  with  the  blessing  of  God, 
will  bring  us  to  the  attainment  of  the  same  end.  So  \^ ere  we 
to  grant  that  water  baptism  is  a  means,  yet  is  it  not  regenera- 
tion itself,  nor  the  ordinary  and  only  means,  because  there  are 
other  means  that  will  bring  us  to  the  same  end  " 

Answer.  That  there  are  several  means,  by  which  a  man 
may  support  himself,  does  not  prove,  that  baptism  is  not  the 
means  of  regeneration.  And  though,  there  should  be  many 
means,  by  which  souls  might  be  regenerated,  yet  it  would  not 
prove,  that  baptism  was  not  the  means  ;  for  if  there  be  seve- 
ral means,  why  may  not  baptism  be  one  ?    I  no  where  said, 

E 


iiiat  baptism  was  the  only  means  ;  but  the  ordinary  ;  which 
two  words  are  not  of  a  synonymous  signification.  In  the 
same  way,  that  Mr.  M.  proves  tliat  baptism  is  not  the  means  ; 
even  so  I  can  prove,  that  the  preaching  ot  the  gospel  is  not ; 
which  he  says  is  the  means.  Fi»r  if,  because  there  ar^  dif- 
ferent means,  baptism  cannot  be  the  means,  it  equally  fol- 
lows, that  preachmg  cannot  be  the  means,  for  the  very  same 
reason.     Would  he  admi    such  reasonuig  ? 

He  also  says  p.  l4,  15  — '"  Hence  means  often  fail  and  do 
not  bring  us  to  the  attainment  of  th.!  desired  end.  How  of- 
ten do  men  plough,  piant,  and  cultivate,  and  yet  fail  to  obtain 
asu^cient  crop?  How  ofien  do  those  who  foliow  other 
means  for  a  support,  fail  to  obtain  the  desired  object  ?  This 
indubitably  proves,  that  the  blessing  is  not  in,  nor  proceeds 
from  the  means  ;  lor  ii  this  were  the  cusCj  we  never  should 
fail,  (whenever  we  used  the  means)  to  obta  n  the  desired  end. 

Thei'eforc,  water  baptism  is  not  rcgeneiation  ;  neither  is  it 
the  heavenly  flood,  nor  ordinary  means  by  which  men  are  re- 
generated. Because  the  grace  which  regenerates  the  soul,ig 
neither  contained  in,  connected  with,  nor  proceeds  from  the 
water  ;  but  immediately  from  the  grace  and  mercy  of  God. 
Hence  many  who  have  been  baptised  with  water,  remain  un- 
regenerate  in  heart,  and  are  as  much  the  servants  and  chil- 
dren of  wickedness  as  th.se  who  never  were  baptised,  &c.  " 
Again  he  says,  p  29 — "  If  baptism  is  a  means  at  all,  it  is 
not  the  ordinary  means,  (as  we  have  ulready  shown)  because 
there  are  other  means,  such  as  preaching  the  gospel,  &c.  that 
commonly  bring  us  to  obta-n  the  same  end  ;  and  sometimes 
all  the  means  fail,  and  the  new  birth  is  never  eftected  in  the 
hearts  of  many." 

Answer.  It  is  admitted,  that  the  husbandman  may  some- 
times plant,  and  cultivate,  and  yet  not  obtain  a  crop.  But  it 
Is  erroneous  to  affirm,  that  such  means  as  are  immediately  em- 
ployed by  providence,  ever  fai'.  Planting,  ploughing,  &c,  are 
means  which  farmers  themselves  follow  in  agriculture,  to  place 
the  seeds,  and  plants,  into  a  proper  situation,  and  to  re- 
wovc  a'l  obstructions  ;  so  that  the  means  of  providence  may 
operate  unimpeded  But  the  means,  unmediately  employed 
by  providence,  are  set  ds,  dews,  rains,  air,  earth,  and  sun- 
beams ;  which  when  they  all  concur,  with  the  agricu'tural  la- 
bours, never  did,  nor  never  shall  fail.  whereas  a  grain  of 
sand  though  planted  in  the  richest  soil,  produces  nothing  ;  be- 
cause the  blessing  of  propegation  is  not  attached  to  it.  It  would 
l|>e  the  climax  of  nonsense,  to  assert,  that  only  sometimes  the 
divine  blessing  was  in  the  seed  to  procreate  their  kinds  ;  that 


35 

only  sometimes  the  nuns,  and  suii-bearns,  possessed  vegetatin| 
properties  ;  and  that  therefore,  IVequentI}  all  n.ust  fail.  The 
experience  ot"  nearly  six  thousand  years,  ever  since  creation, 
verifies,  that  neither  seeds,  nor  dews,  nor  rains,  nor  sun- 
beams, ever  failed  in  their  operations,  when  they  were  sim- 
ultaneous  :  and  when  the  in  lustrious  husbandman  gets  no 
crop,  .t  is  only  because  providence,  for  wise  reasons  withholds 
those  means  ;  and  not  because  of  ;heir  inofticacy. 

As  it  is  manifest,  that  the  m  ans  of  providence,  in  nature 
never  fai  ;  it  is  eq  la'lj'  true,  that  the  divine  means  of  regene- 
ration can  never  be  inettic!acious.  And  though,  the  former 
should  fail ;  yet  would  it  be  no  evidence,  that  ihe  latter  should  ; 
for  they  have  the  divine  promises.  Tiie  means  of  grace  here 
in  qaestion,  are  the  word  of  the  gospel,  and  baptism  I 
would  ask  Mr.  M.  are  these  Go  i's  own  means,  or  the  inven- 
tions of  men  ?  If  he  answers,  they  are  the  invention  of 
men  ;  then  he  b^^trays  himself  as  a  deist  ;  tor  a  deist  denies 
the  gospel  word  to  be  divine.  But  if  he  acknowledge  them 
as  divine,  1  then  would  afk,  is  the  gospel  word  fallible  or  in- 
fallible ?  He  has  confidently  asserted,  that  sometimes  all  the 
means  fail,  an  1  as  the  word  is  one  of  the  principal  means,  it 
is  evident,  th:it  he  considers  it  fa  lible  ;  hence  no  better  than 
the  words  of  an  erring  man.  ,  Elsewhere  he  admits,  that  the 
word  possesses  regenerating  virtues  ;  which  he  here,  and  as 
shall  further  be  sh:)wn,  roundly  contradicts,  by  asserting,  that 
sometimes  all  the  means  fail.  The  word  ol  God  never  fails; 
for  thus  saith  the  prophet —  "  For  as  the  raih  cometh  down, 
and  the  snow  from  heaven,  and  returneth  not  thither,  but  wa- 
tereth  the  earth,  and  maketh  it  bring  forth  and  bud,  that  it  may 
give  seed  to  the  sower,  and  bread  to  the  eater  ;  so  shall  my 
word  be  that  goeth  forth  out  of  my  mouth  :  it  shall  not  re  turn 
unto  me  void  ;  but  it  shall  accompMsh  that  which  I  please, 
and  it  shall  prosper  in  the  thing  whereto  I  sent  it. "  Isa.  55. 
10.  11.     See  2  Pet.  1,  19. 

That  ail  men  who  use  the  means,  are  not  regenerated  is  no 
evidence  that  they  ever  fa'l.  When  a  criminal  absconds  him- 
self in  a  subterranious  vault,  and  freezes,  it  does  not  prove, 
that  the  sun  is  not  a  warmins:  luminary.  Or,  would  any  one 
suppose,  that  when  the  jews  resi'^ted  the  Holy  flhost.  Acts  7, 
51  and  thus  were  not  regenerated,  that  therefore  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  a  fallible  being  ?  No  man  can  regenerate  him- 
seU'jbut  it  is  evident,  that  he  may  violently  resist  the  operations 
of  the  spirit  through  the  means  ;  yet  neither  the  spirit  nor  hie 
means  are  vain,  nor  fallible  ;  for  men  are  left  without  an  ex- 
dQse,  and  God's  goodness,  and  impartiality  :  notwithstanding 


their  opositiOB,  shall  be  magnified.  When  God  has  done  eve- 
ry thing,  which  is  necessary,  to  save  a  sinner,  is  it  rational 
that  he  should  yet  violently  I'orce  him  to  receive  this  favour  ? 
What  happiness  can  we  enjoy  in  that,  which  is  forced  on  us  ? 
This  argument  is  beauti  uliy  illustrated  by  the  prophet  :  "What 
could  have  been  done  more  to  my  vinyard,  that  I  have  not 
done  in  it  ?  Wherefore,  when  I  looked  that  it  shi>uid  bring 
forth  grapes,  brought  it  forth  wild  grapes  ?  "  Isa.  6,  4.  Sec 
also  V  5 — 7 

Mr.  M.  says  p.  14.  "  It  is  the  blessing  of  God  upon  the 
means,  that  makes  them  effectual  ;  without  it,  means  will  be 
used  in  vam,  and  all  our  indeavours  will  prove  ab.»rtive.  And 
also  the  blessing  is  not  contained  in  the  means,  neither  does  it 
proceed  from  them  ;  but  is  an  act  of  iree  grace  and  unmerited 
favour,  bestowed  upon  the  creature,  in  the  use  of  such  means 
which  he  has  appointed  ;  and  is  not  contained  in,  nor  proceeds 
from  the  means,  but  immediate'y  from  God  himself." 

Answer.  It  is  admitted,  that  without  God's  blessings,  means 
are  inefficacious  ;  but  the  question  is,  has  he  put  his  divine 
blessings  upon  the  means,  so  that  they  ate  always  inseparably 
connected  with  the  s;i me  ?  Mr.  M.  says,  that  the  blessings 
are  not  contained  in  the  means,  but  immediately  proceed  from 
God,  it  is  evident,  that  he  denies  these  blessings  to  be  in  them. 
I5  the  divine  blessmg  be  not  contained  in  the  gospel  word  ; 
then  it  is  not  spirit  and  life,  but  only  an  empty  word  without 
any  thing  divine  in  it.  To  say  that  God  at  certain  times, 
when  he  converts  a  sinner,  instuntaniously  adds  his  spirit  to 
the  ontward  gospel  word  ;  so  as  to  make  it  effectual,  is  in  re- 
ality denying  the  divine  authenticity  of  the  holy  scriptures  ; 
for  if  the  word  must  first  receive  this  blessing,  it  then  is  not 
already  the  word  of  God  ;  but  has  yet  to  be  made  such,  by^ 
the  addition  of  a  blessing,  of  which  it  is  destitute,  and 
which  is  ess<^ntial,  to  constitute  its  peculiar  charactcristick. 
Accoiding  to  this  theorj',  vvc  have  no  word  of  God  in  our 
Bibles  ;  for  the  divine  blessing,  which  alone  distinguishes  it 
from  the  word  of  a  mere  man,  and  characterises  it  as  divine, 
js  not  contained  in  it.  Such  a  Mord  is  nothing  but  an  empty 
sound  Mr.  M.  denying,  that  the  divine  blessing  is  contained 
in  the  m'^ans,  he  plucks  from  the  word,  that  which  only 
makes  it  divine. 

According  to  this  plan,  what  opportunities  can  sinners  have 
to  be  saved  ?  For  if  the  divine  blessing  be  not  contained  in 
the  word,  they  must  ♦ither  hear  it  in  vain, or  else  be  excused 
for  not  believing  it.  This  is  ore  of  the  life  strings  of  the  doc- 
trine of  unconditional  election  and  rcprobatiofi.  Only  one  Qf 
fth^e  three  plans  can  be  correct : 


87 

1st,  Either  that,  it  is  not  the  will  of  God,  that  &]}  xnen 
should  be  saved;  because  of  a  secret  decree  of  unconditional 
wrath,  befc*re  the  reprobates  were  in  existence,  and  as  he  has 
not  insepcrably  connected  his  spirit  with  the  word,  and  the 
other  means  ;  hence  although  thoy  use  them,  yet  can  tney  not 
be  saved.  Or,  2d  that,  the  sinner  can  merit  the  favour  of 
God  by  his  works  of  righteousness,  without  receivmg  any 
unmeritfd  gifts  by  the  means  Or,  3d,  that  there  is  an  in- 
seperable  divine  blessing  contained  in  the  word,  and  the  other 
meaas  ;  so  that  all  wiio  attend  to  them,  and  do  not  too  lar  re- 
sist such  blessing  will  be  saved.  And  as  these  means  are 
Gad's  own  gits,  the  sinner  in  the  use  of  them,  v^'ithout  any 
legal  merits  is  saved  by  grace  ;  and  yet,  if  he  be  lost,  it  is 
not  because  of  any  partial  decree,  to  withhold  this  blessing  ; 
but  because  the  sinner,  either  d'^spises  the  means,  or  resists 
the  divine  operations  ;  for  where  can  there  a  medicine  be 
found,  to  cure  the  rejection  of  all  medicine  ? 

Whereas  Mr.  M.  denies  the  divine  blessing  to  be  in  the 
means,  he  of  course  rejects  the  last  mt^ntioned  plan.  As  a 
Methodist  he  cannat  consistently  maintain  the  first,  which  is 
that  of  the  Galvinistic  ua^iondirional  predestination;  hence  I 
cannot  otherwise  conclude,  than  that  he  must  believe,  that  a 
sinner  can  m-«rit  salvation  by  legal  woi-ks.  The  Calvinists 
believe,  that  God  has  two  calls,  the  common  and  the  effectual. 
They  say,  the  common  is  the  outward  gospel  word,  which  in- 
deed all  may  hear  ;  but  there  is  no  divine  blessing  in  it,  sufifi- 
oient  to  regenerate  a  sinner  ;  but  the  effectual  is  an  infallible 
ca'l  of  the  spirit,  not  always  in  the  word,  but  only  designed 
for  the  elect.  Since  th-^y  make  the  preaching  of  the  word  an 
outward  thing,  destitute  of  regenerating  virtues  ;  unless  it 
be  by  an  Instantanious  concurrence  of  the  spirit,  when  it  rea- 
ches the  elect,  it  may  readily  be  accounted  for,  why  they  make 
nothing  but  emblems  of  the  sacraments  ;  for  if  the  word, 
which  is  the  principle  thing  in  them,  be  an  ineffectual  word, 
or  a  mere  common  call,  it  would  follow,  that  they  were  no- 
thing but  shadows  without  a  substance.  This  sets  aside  the 
authenticity  of  the  word  in  the  Bible  ;  because  it  is  but  a  com- 
mon call ;  hence  destitute  of  that  blessinff.  which  only  char- 
acterizes it  as  divine.  Although,  Mr.  M.  as  a  Methodist, 
would  reject  the  doctrine  ot  unconditional  predestination  ;  yet 
has  he  furnished  his  Calvinistic  opponents  with  the  most  fa- 
vourite argument ;  when  he  denies  the  divine  blessing  in  the 
means  ;  and  which  as  clearly  as  can  be,  expresses  the  idea  of 
common  and  effectual  calling.  Thus  he  must,  either  be  a 
strict  predestinarian  ;  or  else,  plead  up  that  most  absurd  doc- 
trine, that  a  sinner  can  merit  salvation  by  legal  works. 


St.  Paul  saith,  "  God  also  hath  made  us  able  mhiisters  of 
Ihe  new  testament ;  not  of  the  letter  but  of  the  sprit  :  lor  the 
letter  kiileth,  but  the  spirit  giveth  lite.  "  2  Cor  3, 6.  "This 
only  would  I  learn  of  you,  received  ye,  the  spirit  by  the 
works  of  the  law,  or  by  the  hearing  of  faith  ?"  Gul.  3,  2. 
And  V.  5 — '' Hi  tlierefore  that  ministereth  to  you  the  spirit, 
and  worketh  miracles  among  you,  do'h  he  it  by  the  works 
of  the  !aw,  or  bv  the  hearing  of  laith.  "  These  texts  shew, 
thai  the  H  uy  Spirit  is  ad.ninistered  by  preachers  of  the  gos- 
pel* Bat  how  could  ^ny  mm  adm  nister  the  spirit,  by  preach- 
ing thi  gospel,  if  the  spirit  was  not  inseparably  connected 
With  the  wjrd  ?  If  the  word  which  is  preached,  be  oniy  an 
outward  w  )rd,  or  a  mere  coaim  m  call  ;  then  the  spirit  is  not 
administered,  which  contradicts  the  aposde.  A  man,  who 
does  not  adm"nister  the  spirit  to  his  tiearers,  but  only  an  out- 
ward call  ;  his  preaehing  is  no  better  than  reverberating  the 
air,  making  some  noise,  which  would  even  not  be  as  agree- 
able as  sounding  brass,  or  a  w^ell  tuned  orgm.  Though  mi- 
racalous  gifts  may  not  now  be  administered  ;  yet  the  gospel 
mast  always  administer  the  spirit,  that  gives  life  to  the  soul  ; 
it  must  be  the  po  ver  of  God  unto  salvation,  to  every  one 
that  believes.  M*.  M.  with  thousands  of  others  denying 
that  the  blessing  is  contained  in  the  means,  at  once  shew, 
that  they  are  m  lintaining  a  useless  ministry  ;  which  is  for- 
eign from  that  of  the  new  testament  dispensation  ;  which  is 
a  ministry  of  the  spirit  ;  hence  not  of  an  outward  sound  and 
shadow,  St*  Paul  also  saith,  ''  If  we  have  sown  unto  you 
spiritual  things,  is  it  a  great  thmg  if  we  shall  reap  your  car- 
nal things  ?  "  1  Cor.  9,  11.  These  words  shew,  that  minis- 
ters are  not  to  be  supported  by  mere  acts  of  charity  ;  but  be- 
cause the  hearers  justly  owe  this  support.  This  is  very  ration- 
al, for  wh)  ought  not  to  give  something,  for  something  which 
is  worth  more  ?  A  man  who  sows  spiritual  gifts,  ought  to 
I'eceive  temporal  gifts  in  exchange.  But  is  it  just,  that  we 
should  be  in  duty  bound,  to  give  som'thing  for  nothing,  or 
that  which  is  worth  nothing ;  unless  it  be  lor  the  sake  of  char- 
ity ?  Where  is  the  least  shadow  of  justice,  ii>  paying  men  for 
delivering  an  outward  gospe',  in  which  there  is  no  divine  bles- 
sing, and  sacraments,  which  have  no  virtue  ;  so  that  we  must 
still  gaze  to  heaven,  and  wait  who  knows  how  long,  for  this 
secret  supernatural  call  ;  or  weary  ourselves  with  legal  works, 
and  finally  remain  un'^ertain  of  the  divine  favour.  In  VHin 
the  clergy,  with  the  garb  of  sanctity,  who  maintain  this  opin- 
ion, exhort  their  people,  to  contribute  for  the  purpose  of  edu- 
Mting  young  men  for  tiie  ministry,  and  sending  them  out  as 


S9 

missionaries  ;  and  extort  extravagant  salaries,  to  support  theni'- 
selvcs  and  their  families  ;  not  unirequently  in  the  luxuries  of 
high  lite  ?  when  they  administer  nothing  but  an  outward  inef- 
iicacious  gospel,  and  saeraments  without  a  substance  ;  so  that 
the  poor  people,  notwithstanding  all  this  pious  parade,  must 
yet  with  agonizing  suspense,  wait  for  this  secret  efiectual  call- 
ing, which  their  priests  tell  them  without  a  blush,  is  not  to  be 
had  in  such  outward  things,  as  the  gospel  word  &  sacraments, 
which  they  administer.  Such  a  minestry  is  a  pest  to,  and  a 
most  gross  imposition  on  society  ;  for  it  is  robbing  the  people 
of  their  temporal  substance  ;  when  in  exchange  they  receive 
no  spiritual  gifts,  unless  it  be  rarely  one  of  the  favourite  elect, 
who  receives  a  secret  call,  or  one,  who  has  by  his  works  me- 
rited heaven  ;  whereas  all  the  rest,  for  the  want  of  this  super- 
natural something  must  be  damned  for  ever.  Christ  said  to 
his  disciples,  *'He  that  heareth  you,  heareth  me  ;  &c  "  Luke 
10,  16.  When  Christ  speaks,  his  words  are  spirit  and  life  ; 
but  when  such  men  preach,  it  seems  agreeable  to  their  own 
confession,  that  Christ  does  not  at  all  times  speak  through 
them  ;  for  they  only  administer  such  outw  ard  means,  in  which 
especially  as  Mr.  M.says,  the  grace  is  not  contained,  but  im- 
mediately proceeds  from  God.  Poor,  miserable  ministry  ! 
How  unlike  to  that,  which  the  servants  of  Christ  bear,  w  hich 
administers  spirit  and  life  ;  joy'ul  news,  and  glad  tidings  to 
all  sinners  !  Thus  we  have  no  need  to  wait  for  an  other  eall^ 
or  view  our  salvation  at  a  great  distance  ;  for  "  the  word  is 
nigh  thee,  even  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  htart  .*  that  is,  the 
woj-d  of  faith  wh'ch  we  preach  ;  that  if  thou  shalt  confess 
with  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt  believe  in  thine  heart 
that  God  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved.'^ 
Rom.  10,  8,  9.  If  this  grace  be  not  contained  in  the  means, " 
but  immediately  proceeds  from  God  ;  then  those  who  receive 
it,  must  like  the  ancient  prophets  and  apostles,  be  inspired. 
But  it  is  strange,  that  they  like  them,  cannot  perlorm  the  same 
miracles.  Aaain,  if  every  one,  who  is  to  be  saved  must  be 
taught  by  im  nediate  inspiration  ;  then  the  necessity  of  a  writ- 
ten revelat  oti  is  superseded,  and  all  the  preachers  are  like  bu- 
sy men  without  employment. 

Many  of  those,  who  believe  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  in- 
separably connected  with  the  word,  have  also  adopted  an 
opinion,  which  is  consonant  to,  and  calculated  to  complete 
this  system.  They  say,  the  word  is  neither  to  be  understood, 
nor  explained  as  it  reads  ;  but  it  must  be  spiritualized,  or  re- 
ceive some  other  mysterious  interpretation.  The  popes  of 
Rome  forbade  the  laity,  to  read  the  scriptures  ;  because  they 


40 

supposed  the  laity  did  not  know  the  proper  interpretation, 
and  would  thus  be  led  astray.  The  pope  considered  himself 
as  inspired,  and  thus  inrallibie,  to  give  the  proper  interpreta- 
tion. Had  the  Papists  believed,  that  the  spirit  was  connected 
with  the  word,  they  would  not  have  neglected  to  read  it  ;  as 
this  blessed  spirit  would  not  have  guided  them  astray.  No- 
thing gave  the  pope  and  his  prelates,  such  an  ascendency  over 
the  consciences  of  people,  as  when  they  deprived  them  of  the 
scriptures  ;  hence  also  of  their  judgment.  For  they  had  to 
lie  at  the  feet  of  mercy  of  the  proud  pontiffs,  for  their  spirit- 
ual guidance.  From  the  anguage  of  many,  styled  protes- 
tants,  it  seems  useless  for  the  laity  to  read  the  scriptures  ;  for 
if  some  private  interpretation  is  necessaiy,  then  they  must 
look  to  a  miraculous  source  for  light.  Upon  the  currency  of 
this  opinion,  many  filthy  dreamers  elevate  themselves,  who 
affect  to  have  heard  supernatural  voices,  and  beheld  visions ; 
and  thus  inspired,  they  can  with  ease  spiritualize  every  sa- 
cred text,  to  whose  visionary  pretensions,  their  votaries  bow 
with  adoration  ;  &  whom  they  enhance  as  spiritual  Lords  ;  be- 
cause they  have  a  superior  illumination  to  those,  who  only  as 
they  maliciously  call  it,  have  the  outward  gospel.  Such  also, 
in  their  imposition,  have  fortified  themselves  against  all  detec- 
tion ;  for  when  they  are  closely  pursued  with  the  scriptures, 
their  subterfuge  is,  they  do  not  mean  as  they  read,  but  must 
be  spiritualized  ;  and  by  this  satanic  act,  can  turn  any  posi- 
tive proof,  into  any  thing  they  please  at  the  expense  of  com- 
mon sense,  and  all  grammatical  accuracy.  It  is  almost  in 
vain,  to  attempt  to  convince  such  deluded  people  by  the  scrip- 
tures ;  for  if  a  truth  be  proven  ever  so  clear  by  positive  text, 
they  in  the  face  of  all  this,  vvill  still  reply  :  perhaps  these  texts, 
do  not  mean  as  they  read  ;  and  if  we  had  our  minister  here, 
he' could  give  the  proper  spiritual  meaning,  or  perhaps  other 
texts  may  be  found,  to  contradict  these  ;  as  if  the  Bible  was 
full  of  contradictions.  To  such  a  hoard  of  fanaticks,  the  Bi- 
ble is  of  no  more  use,  than  it  is  to  the  papists  ;  and  as  they 
put  their  trust  in  the  pope  ;  so  do  these  poor  dreamers  in  their 
inspired  preachers  ;  who  are  constantly  exclaiming  :  the  out- 
ward letter  !  the  dead  letter  !  the  letter  I  the  letter  ! !  whilsi 
they  themselves  speak  and  write  words,  that  are  composed  of 
letters.  Although  many  among  the  protestants  are  diligently 
employed,  in  circulating  the  scriptures  ;  yet,  what  will  it  a- 
.45,  vail,  when  they  make  the  people  believe,  that  they  must  be 

>.'  spiritualized,  or  that  another  private  interpretation  is  necessa- 

ry ?  When  I  have  a  written  revelation,  what  does  it  profit, 
when  I  cannot  rely  upon  it ;  so  that  I  must  have  another  to 
explain  it  ? 


41 

Oar  blessed  Saviour  salth,  "the  words  that  I  speak  unto  you,- 
they  are  spirit  and  they  are  lite.  "  John  6,  68  Ilow  can  a 
man  spiiituahze  the  spirit  ?  He  nigh'  as  Vvell  undeitakr  to 
kill  the  dead.  And  St  Peter  sajth,  "  Kncuiiig  this  first, 
that  no  prophecy  of  the  sciiptine  is  ot  yny  piivate  iiiteipieta- 
tion.  Foi-  the  piopheey  cane  rot  in  old  time  by  the  will  of 
man  ;  but  ho'y  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  noved  liy  the 
Holy  Ghost."  SJ  Pet.  1,20,^^:1.  I;  no  prophecy  be  oi  any- 
private  interpretation,  how  dare  any  n^an,  spir  tua'izt  by  his 
private  inspiiaiion  ;  or  invent  mistc  ritus  meanings,  ^^hich  aie 
not  already  contained  in  the  word  ?  l!  ihey  are  no  private 
interp  etation  ;  then  we  are  to  understand  titm  as  ihey  read, 
and  only  explain  scripture,  by  sciiptuie.  The  scriptures  ire 
no  man's  private  cpirion,  but  the  pioducticn  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  ;  heme  to  explain  sciipture,  by  scripture,  is  no  pri\ate 
interpretation.  Some  ii>deed,  n  uy  (bject  and  say,  what  will 
you  do  with  the  parables  and  metaphors,  v\hi(h  occur  in  the 
Bible  ?  I  Answer,  whatsoever  reads  as  a  parable, or  nietaphor, 
understand,  and  explain  as  such  ;  and  whatsoever  is  literal, 
do  not  turn  into  parables  and  figures.  Let  th(^  obscure  t*  xts  be 
elucidated,  by  comparing  them  with  others  that  aie  p  ain  and 
analogous.  Let  the  si-uification  of  parables,  and  metaphors 
be  sought  for.  in  the  context  ;  and  i;  you  can;  ot  get  the  sense 
immediately  by  such  means,  rather  be  contentefl  or  the  pres- 
ent ;  than  to  invent  a  m*  aring,  which  you  conceive  as  ration- 
al, or  with  which  you  suppose  to  be  inspired.  Ey  frequent 
searching,  the  light  will  incre;ise  :  and  give  understandrg  to 
Ihe  simple.  Ps.  119.  1§0.  Let  him  w  ho  would  a\  ish  to  be- 
come an  able  expositor,  become  a  fool  in  his  own  sirht  ;  and 
whilst  he  is  reading,  lift  his  eyes  to  God,  and  say  :  Open  tbou 
mine  eyes,  that  I  may  behold  wondrous  things  out  of  thy  law. 


SECTION  VIL 

'v  opponent  attempts  to  p^ove,  that  baptism  cannot  be  the  means  of  rcffc- 
neration,  because  water  1:=  a  natural  thing.  The  weakness  thereof  is 
shewn.  A  reply  to  what  he  says,  with  respect  to  the  m<-ny  who  have 
been  bapti'^ed  ;  and  vet,  remained  unreseneiated.  He  argues,  that  be- 
cause we  get  remission  for  sins  by  repentance  ;  thai  therefore,  baptibm  is 
not  the  means  o;  regeneration  This  is  also  examined.  Lastly  a  reply 
to  his  criticism  on   1  Cor.  1,  14-  17. 

In  this  section  I  shall  consider  some  of  Mr,  M's  argtt- 

F 


42 

Ertents,  which  he  alleges  as  positive  objections,  to  prove  that 
baptism  is  not  ihe  means  of  regeneration. 

1.  Hesuys,  p  6.  "  Regeneration  is  a  spiritual  bi;th,  «hich 
takes  place  in  tho  soul  or  spirit  ot  man  ;  th>  refore,  that  \\  hich 
is  natu  a!  cannot  b  ^get  and  produce  that  which  is  spiritual  : 
every  thing  mast  beget  and  produce  its  like.  Water  is  a  na- 
kirai  tiling,  therefore  cunnot  produce  a  spiritual  birth. " 

Answer,  No  one  denies,  that  water  is  a  natural  things 
and  as  sucli  it  cannot  produce  a  sjoiritual  biith.  But  what  is  it 
to  prove  ? — that  baptism  is  not  the  means  of  regeneration  ? 
It  ajjpears,  to  have  been  introduced  for  this  purpose.  Water 
is  a  natural  thing,  and  as  such  cannot  produce  that  which  is 
sp  ritual  ;  thereiore,  baptism  cannot  be  the  means  of  regenera- 
tion !  Such  logick  is  tulse.  Baptism  does  no;  consist  of  mere 
water,  it  is  the  mj.-it  insignificant  part  thereof  ;  for  its  sub- 
stance is  God's  name,  and  command.  Now,  to  give  a  tair 
statement,  the  argument  ought  to  stand  thus  ;  God's  name^ 
and  command  are  spiritual,  and  they  are  the  substance  oi  bap- 
tism ;  therefore,  as  every  th.ng  begets  and  produces  its  like, 
baptism  must  produce  the  spiritual  birth.  But  it  appear*,  by 
some  misiortune,  my  opponent  got  a  film  over  his  eyes  ;  that 
although,  h  s  own  brethren,  when  they  baptise,  use  the  name 
of  God  ;  (and  peihaps  also  he  does  it  himself)  yet,  he  can 
see  nothing  but  \^  ater  ! 

2.  He  says,  p.  8,  9,  *'  After  the  Christian  religion  became 
established  by  civil  authority,  men  of  corrupt  minds  came  in- 
to the  ministry  for  the  sake  of  gain  ;  then  it  w  as  that  this  o- 
pinion,  among  other  errors,  crept  into  the  church,  viz  :  th^ 
water  baptism  was  regeneration.  Hence  scores,  and  hun- 
dreds, became  Christians,  joined  the  church,  and  got  regen- 
erated in  this  way.  But  w  ere  they  any  bettei ,  alter  they 
were  thus  regenerated,  and  became  Christians,  than  they 
were  before  ?  Not  a'  whit.  For  the  most  of  them  w  ere  as- 
wicked  as  tliey  were  while  in  a  stated  heathenism.  Hence 
that  persecuting  spirit  that  crept  into  the  church  ;  and  men, 
under  the  sacred  nam?;  of  Christians,  would  persecute,  tor- 
ment, kill  and  distroy  their  fellow  men,  just  as  bad  as  the 
heathens.  And  a'l  this,  for  the  crime  of  a  little  difference  of 
op'nion  in  some  points  of  doctrine,  &  mode  of  external  worship. 
Hence  also  the  institution  of  the  holy  inquisition,  which  v  as 
a  scandal  to  civil  society,  and  a  disgrace  to  human  nature. 
These  were  some  of  the  good  fruits  which  those  Christians 
l>rought  forth,  who  were  regenerated  by  Mr.  H's  '^heavenly 
flood."  And  as  like  causes  always  produce  like  efiects,  we 
ravay  be  at  liberty  to  think,  that  if  he  and  his  adherents  geium- 


A3 

belter  regeneration  than  what  he  talks  about,  that  although 
he  calls  ihem  Gods  in  his  piece,  page  15,  yei  their  Iruit  w  11 
be  no  great  deal  better  than  those  lorner  y  were.  " 

Answer.  There  is  no  consistency  in  asseiting,  that  because 
many  of  the  Papists  abused  the  baptismal  grace  ;  that  therefore, 
the  doctrine  I  niamlam  is  lalse.  Ti.is  is  ihe  argunjt  nt,  v\  hich 
deists  employ,  to  oppose  the  Christian  religion,  i  hey  say, 
many  of  ttie  bishops  and  priests  were  tyrants,  and  that  Chi  is- 
tianity  has  been  the  cause  of  many  evils,  and  bloody  wms  ; 
hence,  conclude  that  it  i«  nohing  bu'.  priest-craft.  Provided 
my  opponent  is  not  a  deist,  what  would  he  answer  to  such 
an  objection  ?  Would  he  not  sny,  what  have  prelacy,  and 
tyranny  to  do  with  Christianity  ? — tloes  the  abuse  o»  a  tlung, 
prove  ihat  the  thing  itself  'S  bad  ?  Relgitn  is  not  the  cause 
of  wars,  nor  other  evils  ;  but  corrupted  men,  who  under  its 
sacred  garb  ;  notwithstanding,  its  benign  precepts  aie  gover- 
ned by  their  evil  passions.  As  little  as  Re  igion  is  the  cause 
of  wars,  among  those  who  profess  it  ;  just  so  little  is  the  doc- 
trine of  baptism,  here  in  question,  of  the  abominations  which 
Mr.  M.  mentions.  That  many  of  the  Papists  made  baptism, 
and  other  holy  things,  their  pi.nder!-,  is  no  proof  at  all  of  their 
invalidity.  My  opponent  exhorts  his  readers,  to  pray,  that 
they  might  obtain  the  knowledge  of  the  pardon  of  their  sins, 
&c.  and  the  Methodists  practise  fasting.  Who  pi  a}  ed  and 
fasted  more  than  the  Papists  ?  But  would  he  concude,  that 
all  those  persons,  who  fast,  and  pray,  will  have  no  better 
fruits  than  such  Papists,  who  hoisted  the  bloody  flag  of  per- 
secution ?  If  it  be  a  proo^",  that  because  the  Papists  were 
baptised,  believing  it  to  be  the  means  of  regeneration,  and  yet 
continued  wicked,  that  such  a  doctrine  is  false  ;  it  equally  fol. 
lows,  that  praying  with  a  view  to  obtain  pardon  for  sins, 
must  be  fa'se  ;  because  the  Papists  prayed  for  this  purpose, 
and  continued  wicked. 

That  he  say«;,  if  I  and  my  adherents  get  no  better  regen- 
eration, our  fruits  will  be  n  >  better  than  those  of  the  Papists, 
who  tormonted,  and  killed  their  fellow  men,  as  bad  as  the 
heathens,  is  cas'ing  the  most  clandestine  persona'  reflections* 
Why  did  he  not  point  out,  wherein  I  and  my  adherents  ma- 
nifested such  bloody  persecuting  works,  'ike  unto  the  inquisi.- 
tors  among  the  P.ipists  ;  so  that  we  might  have  defended  our- 
selves ?  It  is  beneath  the  dignity  of  a  gentleman,  to  make 
amy  criminal  insinuations.  It  betrays  a  cowardly  spirit,  who 
wishes  to  injure  another's  good  reputation  with  impunity.  If 
h?  know  such  conduct,  let  him  specify  the  charges,  and  thee 
he  may  ha\e  an  opportunity  of  proving  them.    By  my  ad^ 


iierewts,  I  do  not  know,  v,'hom  he  can  mean  ;  except  they  be 
my  Lutheran  brethren,  who  believe  this  doctrine.  J  disclaim 
this  pa/tial  honour.  I  am  neither  the  first, nor  the  only  man, 
wh)  maintains  this  doctrine.  Luther  the  great  Rel'ormer  dil- 
igently inculcated  it.  So  did  the  apostles,  and  mauy  ot  the 
primitive  G  iristians.  It  "S  readiiy  admitteii,  that  all  Luther- 
ans are  sinners  ;  ahhough,  some  of  them  are  also  saints  ;  and 
they  rt-j  )ice,  that  they  knaw  it  ;  for  as  such  they  have  a  Sa- 
vioar  :  but  tor  a  trial,  to  ascertain  whether  they  have  no  bet- 
ter truits  than  so  *h  Papists,  who  persecute  and  kill  their  feK 
Jew  m'  n,  I  appeal  in  thi'ir  and  my  beha'-',  rom  iV^r  Moore's 
tribunal,  to  an  impartial  pubtick.  But  are  Mr.  M.  and  his 
M^-th  )dist  brethren  nj  sinneis  ?— that  so  many  o;  them  ex- 
claim, with  ifnperious  langu-gc :  thmv  are  many  wicked 
Lutheran  ,  who  are  utter  strangers  to  the  inward  work,  and 
^re  n>t  going  an  unto  perfei  tion  !  O  my  Methodi^^t  ft'iends  ! 
whereas  I  perceive,  that  many  of  ynu  are  almost  ready,  to 
thank  Go  1,  that  you  are  not  such  sinners  iis  the  Lutherans, 
who  depend  so  nueh  upon  the  divine  promises,  made  to  them 
in  b  iptis  n,  I  indeed  pity  you,  that  you  are  no  such  sinners  in 
your  own  view  ;  for  sintiors  only  can  have  an  interest  in 
Christj  who  is  the  S  iviour  of  the  lost  ;  the  righteousness  of 
the  ungodly,  to  ju'^tiiy  them  ;  and  the  resurrection,  and  lil'e  of 
|;he  dead  ;  '"or  t'ley  that  be  whole  need  not  the  physician. 

Mr.  M  also  says.  p.  10.  ^'  The  case  of  Smi.)n  the  sor- 
.cerer,  rivorded  Acts  8.  18,  2-3,  will  fully  establish  tliis  point. 
It  is  said  Simon  hims'/lialso  believed,  and  was  baptised,  v.  13, 
i.  e.  he  believed  the  doctrine  which  Philip  preached,  and  in 
|that  faith  \va$  baptised  :  but  he  was  not  regenerated,  for  Pe- 
ter said  to  him,  I  pereeive  that  thou  art  still  in  the  gall  of  bit- 
terness and  bond  of  iniquity.  "  Hence  he  had  never  been  re- 
generated*  Therefore,  water  baptism  is  not  regeneration,  &c." 

Answer.  Mv  opponent  has  said,  that  the  pr -aching  of  the 
gospel  is  the  ordinary  means  of  reaeneration.  INovv,  Simon 
also  beared  the  gospel  preached,  and  was  not  regenerated  ; 
^hn'e'ore,  preaching  of  the  aospel  cannot  l)e  the  means  :  so 
th9.t,  if  thii?  prove  any  thing  against  baptism,  it  does  the  same 
jagainst  preaching  o''the  gospel  ;  and  if  it  be  against  r-e,  \t  is 
^qaal'y  as'i^Hist  himself.  To  say,  if  baptism  weie  a  n-eans  of 
regmeration,  there  would  not  be  '^o  many  wi' kcd  people,  that 
,are  baptised-  ^s  they  would  all  be  regenerated,  has  become 
^  yulgar  cant,  and  passes  for  ia  good  argoment  ;  whereas  in 
jpea'ity  it  is  only  ral,  ulated  tnoverthnwcvcMy  thing  that  is  sa- 
^jre'l.  For  if  this  hp  a  good  reason,  that  baptism  is  not  a  means 
0f  |iregei)cr9-tion,  because  there  aie  wicked  people,  who  air. 


45 

baptised  ;  tlien  I  may  argue  with  equal  propriety  and  plausi- 
bility :  prayer  is  a  useless  exercise  ;  because  there  are  many, 
who  pray,  and  yetontinue  hypocrites — there  is  not  the  least 
virtue  in  preachmo'  the  g.)spel  ;  because  there  are  many  whp 
hear  it,  and  yet  frequint  un  uwiu  asrembl  es — the  holy  scrip- 
tures are  not  the  word  of  G  >  J  ;  because  there  are  many,  wh^ 
reaH  them,  yet  are  and  remain  infidels — the  Holy  Ghost  him- 
self, cannor  be  a  divine  enerjjfv  ;  because  the  Jews,  and  many 
thousan  Is  beside,  with  whom  hestrov->,  were  not  tuined,  nor 
regenerated  !  Neither  a  deist,  nor  an  atheist,  could  have  inven- 
ted a  more  diabohcal  objection,  to  overthrow  the  Christian  re- 
hgion,  than  the  one  alleged  by  my  opponent,  against  the  doe- 
trine  oT  baprism,  here  m  qu  stion.  Man>  people  possess  such 
crud',  and  barbarous  minds,  that  they,  imagine,  if  baptism  is 
to  do  any  good,  it  must  be  like  som*-  carnel  medicine,  which 
if  only  applied,  will  operate  physically,  without  any  mental  ac- 
quiescence ;  and  when  they  cannot  perceive  a  sudden,  sensi- 
ble a'teration,  they  conclude,  that  it  is  nothing,  but  a  shadow ; 
and  then  in  the  most  savage  ike  manner,  blaspheme  this 
blessed  nstitution.  The  mind  of  a  man,  is  not  like  a  weath- 
ercock on  a  spike,  which  is  moved  by  the  violence  of  the 
winds,  without  being  capable  of  making  any  resistance  ;  so 
that  we  are  not  to  conclude,  that  i:  baptism  poi^sess  regenera- 
ting virtues,  it  must  infal'  b!y,  and  irresistibly  regenerate  eve- 
ry one,  to  whom  it  is  administere  1.  Baptism  is  a  spiritual 
means  ;  h^nce,  the  design  of  its  operations  is  not  physical,  bujt 
spiritual  ;  it  therefore,  can  only  prove  salutary,  where  it  does 
not  meet  with  too  much  opposition.  It  must  alas  !  be  admit- 
ted, that  many  of  the  baptised  do  not  v^alk  in  newness  of  Tfej 
j^et,  this  is  no  evidence  of  the  deficiency  of  baptism  ;  but  only, 
that  they  stifle  its  blessed  operations 

8.  Mr.  M.  says  p  10,  11,  "  Oar  Lord  declares,  ^except 
ye  repent,  ye  sha'l  all  likewise  perish.'  Luke  13,  3,  5.  And 
St.  Piu'  savs,  ^G)d  commands  ail  men  every  vvht're  to  re- 
pent.' Acts  17 — And  a'so  to  the  elders  of  the  church  at  E- 
phesus.  he  said,  'that  he  had  kept  ba  k  nothing  that  was  prof- 
itable unto  you  ;  but  shewed  publickly  from  house  to  house, 
testifying  both  to  the  Jews  and  also  to  the  Greeks,  repen. 
tance  towards  God,  and  faith  towards  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ/ 
Acts  20,  20,21.  Wherefore,  says  he,  'I  take  you  to  record, 
that  I  am  pure  from  the  blood  of  a' I  men,  for  I  have  not 
shunned  to  declare  the  whole  counsel  of  God.'  verses  26,  27. 
Those  scriptures  undeniably  prove-  that  water  baptism  is  not 
regeneration,  nor  the  ordinary  means  ;  because  it  is  by  repen^ 
tance  towards  God,  and  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that 


we  obtala  this  blessing.  Now,  baptism  is  neither  repentance 
Bor  faith  ;  because  m  my  have  been  baptiseH,  who  never  re- 
pented nor  believei  ;  and  many  have  repented  and  believed, 
so  as  to  bi  regenerated  an  i  born  again,  whj  never  had  been 
baptised.  Therefore,  water  baptism  is  not  regeneration,  nor 
the  ordinary  m-'ans. 

Peter  say,  ^Rjpent  ye,  therefore,  and  be  converted,  that 
your  sins  miy  be  blotted  oat,  when  the  times  of  reireshmg 
snail  com^  from  th'3  presence  of  the  Lord '  Acts  3,  19. 
Here  note,  we  have  to  repent  and  be  converted,  in  order  to 
be  regenerated  ;  then  it  is  that  all  our  sins  are  blotted  out, 
and  the  refreshing  showers  of  divine  grace  come  into  our 
souls,  not  from  water  baptism,  but  from  the  presence  of  the 
liOrd.  From  the  above  quoted  passages  of  scr  pture,  it  is  ev- 
ident that  water  baptism  is  not  regeneration,  neith-^r  a  heav- 
enly flood  o**,  nor  ordiniry  means  by  which  we  obtain  this 
blessing  ;  but  we  have  to  rep  mt,  and  believe  on  the  Lord  Je- 
sus Christ,  with  the  heai't  unto  rig'iteousness,  in  order  to  be 
reeenerated,  and  born  again  by  a  spiritua'  birth.  Without 
which  we  shall  likewise  perish,  whether  baptised  or  not  bap- 
tised with  water. " 

Answer.  No  man  I  presume  denies,  that  faith  and  repen- 
tance arc  necessary  for  the  remission  of  sins  ;  and  idso,  the 
most  superficial  mind  perceives,  th  it  neither  of  them  is  bap- 
tism. Has  not  my  opponent  asserted,  that  the  pnachmfi  of 
the  gispel  is  the  means  of  regeneration  ?  now  in  the  same 
manner  he  proves,  that  baptism  is  not  the  means,  so  I  can 
prove,  that  preaching  the  gospel  is  not ;  for  who  does  not 
know,  that  faith,  ani  repen"an  ;e  are  not  preaching  the  gospel? 
In  the  same  manner,  I  may  a'so  prove,  that  we  cannot  be  sa- 
ved by  Christ  ;  for  we  are  to  b<^  regenerated  by  fath  and  re- 
pentance .*  now  Ci'ist  is  n  »t  fa';th,  no  •  repentance  ;  therefore, 
we  are  not  save  1  by  O  irist  !  Mo  4  horrid  !ogi'*k  !  It  does 
not  stop  here  ;  T  miy  d^-rv  it  further,  viz  :  we  cannot  be  re- 
generated by  the  H  >1y  G'lost  ;  because  it  is  by  repentance, 
and  aith  ;  but  the  Holy  Gho^t  is  neither  ;  therefore,  we  can- 
not be  regenerated  by  him  It  is  not  necessary  to  prove,  that 
baptism  is  faith  and  repentance,  to  establish  the  point  in  ques- 
tion. It  is  suTie'ent  if  it  be  proven,  that  baptism  is  the  means, 
by  wh'ch  the  spirit  operates  on  a  sinner,  to  produce  repen- 
tance, by  which  we  olitain  pardon  'or  sin  :  now  that  which  is 
a  means  to  produce  repentanc\',  is  certainly  the  means  of  re- 
generation Tile  same  may  be  said  of  Ch-ist,  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  the  preaching  of  the  gospel.  Christ  sends  the  spirit  ;  the 
4^irit  operates  through  the  gospel,  to  produce  repentance  ;  and 


47 

by  repentance  we  obtain  the  remission  for  sins  :  and  fhas  a}. 
though,  the  scriptures  a^cribt  it  to  repentance  ;  yet,  it  is  easi- 
ly perceived,  that  this  does  rot  exc  ure  causes,  i'.r('  n  cans  to 
produce  repentance.  Had  my  opponent  proved,  tlat  baptism 
is  no  means,  by  which  the  spirit  cpeiates,  then  trU  cf  u'd  he 
have  proved  that  it  was  not  a  means  of  regeneration.  But  as 
be  has  not  done  this,  liis  aigument  is  a  baieiaced  'cphism,  by 
which  hciloesnot  on  y,  exclude  bt.ptism  as  the  m.eans  ;  bet 
also,  Christ,  the  spirit,  and  the  preachir  g  of  the  gospel.  That 
baptism  is  the  means  has  already  bed)  paitly  established, and 
shall  yet  further  be  illustrated  and  cenfirn  ed. 

\n  this  place  I  deem  it  expedient,  and  my  duly,  to  leply  to 
a  false  representation  made  by  many,  especially  anorg  the 
Methodists,  against  the  Lutheran  doctrines,  and  community. 
Such  represent  Lutherans  as  poor,  ignorant,  carnal  people, 
without  any  knowledge  of  the  inward  work  of  the  spirit ;  and 
that  the  most  o*^  their  preachers,  assert  il  cne  cnly  be  baptised 
with  a  little  water,  catechised,  and  receive  the  Lord's  Srpper, 
one  shall  in'allibly  be  saved,  without  any  repentjince.  They 
then  like  Mr  M.  quote  sundry  passages  of  scripture,  to  prove 
the  necessity  of  repentance  ;  and  vAhen  this  is  done,  they  im- 
agine,  they  proved  away  the  importance  of  baptism  ;  and  to 
finish  tht-  r  declamation,  add,  il  Lutherans  do  not  repent,  and 
experience  the  pardon  or  sins,  they  wiii  all  go  to  hell  ;  not- 
withstancine,  their  \^ater  baptism  !  It  is  atlmitted,  that  there 
are  too  many  unrcirenerated  sinners,  who  are  called  Luther- 
ans, the  5a:ne  as  there  are,  too  many  subtile  Inpocrites,  a- 
mong  the  Methodists  :  but  I  deny,  that  all  the  Lutheran!-  are 
strangers  to  the  new  life  in  Christ  ;  and  1  declare  it  as  slan- 
der, that  their  confession  bo  )ks  ;  or,  that  their  ministers  teacb; 
or,  that  it  is  an  opinion,  which  is  generally  received  among 
them  ;  that  if  the  smner  only  be  baptised,  &c.  that  without 
repentance  he  shall  be  saved.  Our  symbolical  books,  many 
other  treatises,  written  in  our  church,  and  our  sermons  insist 
on  repentance  ;  although,  we  teach  that  baptism  is  the  means 
of  regeneration.  The  spirit  by  baptism  as  a  m.eans  operates 
©n  the  sinner,  to  effect  repentance  ;  hence,  the  remission  for 
sins  ;  this  is  the  de«iizn  for  which  we  administer  it ;   and  if 

ftroperly  applied  ,^  and  the  operations  thereof,  be  not  too  vio- 
ently,  and  incessantly  resisted,  will  produce  these  blessings. 
Would  not  those  Methodists  consider  us  unfair,  and  censori- 
ous, if  we  would  conclude,  that  beeause  they  preach  and  pray, 
and  have  sundry  other  exercises,  that  therefore,  they  deny  the 
inward  work  of  the  spirit  ;  and  if  we  would  tell  them,  if  yoo 
do  not  repent,,  you  will  go  to  hell,  with  all  your  preachings 


4S 

praying  and  exercises  ?  Would  they  not  reply :  we  very 
well  know,  without  being  told,  that  repentance  is  necessary, 
and  for  this  reason  we  pi-each.  pray.  &c.  to  produce  it.  As 
this  nnd  lubtedly  would  be  treating  them  in  an  unlair ,  and  un- 
godly manner  ;  equally  so  unfair,  such  treat  the  Lutherans, 
by  pa  ming  it  on  tUem,  as  if  they  denied  the  inward  work  of 
the  spirit,  \vhen  this  is  the  very  design,  for  which  tliey  admin- 
ister bap!  ism. 

4.  Mr.  M.  says  p.  8.  9,  10,  "  The  first  passage  I  v\ill 
call  your  attention  to,  is  in  1st  Cor.  1^  li,  17,  v. here  Paul 
said,  'I  thank  God,  that  1  liap^ised  none  of  you,  but  Crispus 
and  Gains  ;  and  al'-o  the  housthold  of  SiephanuJ  ; —  For 
Christ  sen  me  not  to  baj  tise,  but  :o  preach  tlie  j^ospl.'  Now 
if  water  baptism  is  regeneration,  or  as  Mr  H  calls  it,  a 
*'Heavenly  flood  of  ixg(  neraJ ion,"  is  it  ntt  surprising  that  St. 
Paul  thanked  God  thiit  he  had  regenera'ed  so  iew  of  them  ? 
Or,  that  he  bad  applied  the  "heavenly  flood"  by  which  they 
were  to  be  regenerated,  to  so  few  ?  To  me,  it  would  be  ve- 
ry surprising  indeed  !  That  the  inspired  apostle,  uhose  fla- 
ming zeal  for  the  glory  oi  God,  and  the  sa  vation  ol  immor- 
tal souls,  had  led  him  to  sa  rifice  evfty  wor'dly  conadei alien, 
and  give  himself  wholly  to  the  work  of  the  ministiy,  that  if 
by  any  means  he  might  save  some  ;  yet,  that  he  shcJuid  thark 
GofI  that  he  had  been  the  means  of  regenerating  so  few, 
would  be  very  strange  and  surprising  !  This  undeniably 
proves  that  St  P.iul  did  not  believe  that  water  baptism  w  as 
a  heavenly  flood,  by  which  men  are  regenerated  and  born  of 
the  spirit.  If  that  had  been  his  opinion,  instead  of  thiinking 
God  that  he  had  baptsed  so  few,  he  would  have  been  very 
sorry,  that  he  had  not  baptised  a  great  many  more.  But  St. 
Paul  knew,  that  if  they  had  no  better  conversion  and  regene^ 
ration  than  water  baptism  could  con  er  upon  them,  they  v\  ould 
be  as  much  the  servants  oi  wickedness  after,  as  before  they 
were  baptised.  And.  if  they  had  been  baptised  by  him 
with  water,  this  might  have  led  them  to  depend  npori  what 
he  had  done  for  salvation. —  There^bre,  he  thanks  God  that 
h-^  had  done  nothing,  that  would  give  them  any  ground  to 
build  a  false,  hope  upon.  " 

'-  Again,  St.  Paul  says  ; — "  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptise, 
but  to  preach  the  gospel,  "  &••  Now  if  baptism  is  regenera- 
tion, or  a  h 'avenly  flo')rl'  by  which  people  aie  regenerated, 
this  wouhl  prove  that  St.  Paul  was  not  sent  to  be  a  means  of 
rcffcnerat'ng  Hie  peop'e,  1  ut  only  to  tea.  h  them  ;  w  hieh  is  con- 
trary to  his  own  words — ?ee  Acts  26,  17,  18  : — -Delivering 
thee  from  the  people,  and  fron-  the  Gentiles  to  whom  T  now^ 
send  thee  j  to  open  their  eyes,  to  turn  them  from  darkness  to 


49 

light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan  unto  Gorf,  that  they  may 
receive  torgivt-ness  of  sins,  and  an  inheritance  among  them 
which  are  sanctirted.'  Here  St,  Paul  states  what  Christ  sent 
him  to  do,  (not  to  baptise  with  water)  but  to  regenerate  the 
people  ;  or,  which  is  the  same,  *to  open  their  eyes,  to  turn 
them  from  darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan  to 
God  ;  that  they,  thereby  might  nceive  forgiveness  of  sin, 
and  be  partakers  of  those  great  blessings  which  alone  belong 
to  those  who  are  sanctified.*  This  certainly  is  the  work  of 
regeneration,  by  which  the  soul  is  begotten  and  born  again 
by  a  spiiitual  birth.  " 

''  In  1st  Cor.  4,  15,  St.  Paul  says  : — 'Though  ye  have  ten 
thousand  instructers  in  Christ,  yet  ye  have  not  many  lathers  ; 
for  in  Christ  Jesus,  I  have  begotten  you  through  the  gospe  I 
This  undeniably  proves,  that  water  baptism  is  not  regenera- 
tion, neither  is  it  the  *heaven!y  flood,'  nor  the  ordinary  means 
by  which  men  are  regenerated.  Because  Paul  said,  he  had 
baptised  none  of  them,  except  Crispus  and  Gains,  and  the 
household  of  Stephanus  ;  yet,  'in  Christ  Jesus  he  had  begot- 
ten them  [including  the  whole  church]  through  the  gosptl,' 
and  not  through  water  baptism,  even  as  a  means.  Therefore, 
according  to  Paul,  water  baptism  is  not  regeneration.  " 

Answer.  My  opponent  and  his  brethren  baptise,  but  why 
do  they  t,  when  Paul  'hanked  God,  that  he  baptised  but  a 
few  ?  Suppose  according  to  Mr.  M's  theory,  baptism  is  on- 
ly an  emblem  ;  then  Paul  thanked  God,  that  he  administered 
this  emblem  to  but  few  ?  So,  if  this  text  prove  any  thing  a- 
gainst  the  doctrine  contained  in  my  treatise,  it  equally  proves 
against  the  doctrine,  of  baptism  being  an  embiem.  My  op- 
ponent by  this  gloss,  is  led  to  deny  the  use  of  all  baptism, 
performed  with  water  ;  and  thus  makes  Paul  contradict 
Christ,  who  commanded  to  baptise  all  nations.  In  this  same 
manner,  the  Q.uakers  handle  this  text,  for  the  purpose  of  de- 
nying the  use  of  baptism,  as  performed  with  v  ater  They  do 
it  with  equal  propriety  ;  for  if  Paul  thanked  God,  for  having 
baptised  but  a  few,  what  use  is  there  for  us  to  perform  it, 
whether  we  consider  it, as  a  mere  emblem,  or  any  thing  else  ? 
Mr.  M.  must  either  acknowledge  himself  a  Quaker,  and  deny 
the  use  of  baptism  ;  or  else  own  his  gloss  to  be  a  sophism. 

Not  because  baptism  is  not  the  means  of  regeneration,  is 
the  reason  why  St.  Paul  thanked  God,  that  he  had  baptised 
but  few  of  the  Corinthians.  There  were  some  disagreeable 
divisions  among  them,  which  is  indicated  by  the  context  :— 
'•  Now  this  I  say,  that  every  one  of  you  saith,  I  am  of  Paul, 
and  I  of  AooUoSj  and  I  of  Cephas,  and  I  of  Christ.    I? 

G 


so 

Cfhrist  divided  ?  was  Paul  crucified  for  you  ?  or  were  ye  bap- 
tised in  the  nameot*  Paul  }■  "  v.  12,  13.  Tiiese  verses  shew, 
that  some  ol"  the  Corinthians  were  about  to  coBMder  Paul, 
soine  Ap'>  los,  ai>d  others  Cephas,  as  the  head  of  their  party* 
Ha  I  St.  Paul  baptised  a  goodly  number  oi  them,  they  might 
have  considered  themselves  more  justifiable,  in  preferring  him 
before  all  the  oiher  apostles  as  their  head  ;  ancl  as  he  himself 
statesj  some  might  have  said,  that  h:;  had  baptised  them  in  his 
own  namf^,  v.  15  : — and  thus  prostituted  this  blessed  institution 
to  a  c  unal  purpose.  But  as  Paul  had  on'y  baptised  a  tew, 
they  were  bereft  of  the  opportunity  of  establishing  a  parly,  on 
this  ground  ;  and  as  divisions  are  injurious  to  Christianity,  it 
was  very  rational^  that  he  should  be  thankful,  that  this  abuse 
of  baptism  had  been  ptevf-nted.  There  v^onld  have  been  no 
danger,  that  any  of  the  Corinthians  would  have  constituted 
Paul,  the  head  of  their  party,  because  he  had  baptised  them  ; 
provided,  baptism  was  so  insignificant  a  thing  ;  lor  what  soci- 
ety of  peop  e,  would  crown  a  man  their  head,  and  a'most  de- 
ity him.  for  having  according  to  ^  r.  M's  notion,  poured  on 
them  a  little  water?  Had  St.  Paul,  'ike  Mr.  M.  cousklered 
bapti&m  a  mere  emblem,  he  would  have  inculcated  the  same 
into  the  minds  of  the  Coiiiithians  ;  if  so,  they  would  have  had 
no  cause,  on  that  grounil^to  drity  him,  whetl  er  he  baptised 
few,  or  many  ;  and  what  rt-ason,  would  he  thtn,  have  had,  to 
thank  God,  or  having  baptised  but  a  lew  ?  But  we  wil  sup- 
poseyhaptim  to  be  tiie  means  of  regeneration,  and  the  Corin- 
thians b>>ing  taught  so  by  the  apostle  ;  would  not  this  have 
magnified  their  ven<  ration  for  him  ;  provided,  he  had  baptised 
them  ;  and  held  out  stronger  inducements,  to  constitute  him 
the  head  of  their  party  ?  for  the  greater  the  ministry,  and  the 
more  valuable  the  things,  that  are  thereby  administered,  'he 
more  the  person,  who  sustains  it,  is  esteemed.  Had  my  op- 
ponent, instead  of  St  Paul,  laboured  among  the  Corinthians, 
thi-y  would  not  have  said,  "lam  Joseph  Moore  / "  alth  ugh, 
he  had  baptised  ever  so  many  -  for  had  he  represented  bap- 
tism as  mean,  and  insignificant,  in  their  sight,  as  he  f.as  m  his 
pamphlet,  there  wou'd  not  have  been  the  least  danger,  thai 
they,  on  that  account  would  have  deified,  and  constituted  him 
the  head  of  their  party  ;  and  thus  he  would  have  had  no  rea- 
son at  a  1,  like  St  Paul  had,  to  thank  God,  for  only  having 
baptised  a  tew. 

When  the  apostle  asks  :  ''^was  Paul  crucified  for  you  ?  "  he 
coiuiects  \^ ith  being  cruiified  :  "or  were  ye  baptised  in  the 
name  of  Paul  ?"  The  one  that  was  cinicified  for  (hem,  is 
fthtir  Saviour  y  hence  if  Paul  had  been  erucified  for  them,  they 


Si 

^Mg^ht  to  have  deified  him  ;  hence  also,  being  baptised  in  his 
name,  being  conneetod  with  being  emeiHed,  givi  s  baptism  a 
great  inipoitance.  But  this  is  mapp'icable  to  Fuul  ;  }et  it  lul- 
ly  applies  to  Ciiiist.  To  be  b  |)ti^ed  in  Christ's  luinie,  in- 
volves also,  being  baptised  into  his  death,  as  diustiated  by  St 
Paid  Rom.  6,  o    5 

Notwithstanfling,  Panl  baptised  but  a  few  of  the  Corinthi- 
ans ;  yet  does  it  provi  ,  that  they  w«  re  not  baptised  r  No — 
f.),-  if  they  weiv  not,  uliy  \v>  uld  he  ask  them,  were  ye  bapti- 
sed in  the  name  of  Paul  ?  This  presupijoses  tin  m  al!,  as  be- 
in^  baptised.  Although,  the  apustles  in  many  insianees,  did 
nut  themselves p'rform  bap  Msm  ;  yet  they  eauscd,  (sr  ordeied 
others  to  do  it.  Thus  St.  P  'ter  commandec!  the  G-  ntile  con- 
gi-egation,  in  the  house  (.f  C>)rnelius.  to  be  baptised  Acts  10, 
iti,  48.  Paul  tither  baptise<l,oror('ered  Lydiaand  her  ht  use- 
hold,  to  be  haptsed.  Acts  16,  15.  Either  Paul,  or  Silas 
baptised  the  Jailor,  an  I  his  househo  d  v.  33.  It  does  dot  re- 
quire as  much  ski' I  to  baptise,  as  to  teach,  und  preach  ;  hence 
it  was  very  expedient,  ;oi  the  divinciy  inspired  apostles^  to  de- 
volve the  office  of  baptising  upon  the  deacons  ;  so  that  they 
might  acquiie  moi-e  time,  'or  the  purpo'-e  of  enhancinsi  their  o- 
ther  labours.  That  the  dearon^*  baptised,  is  evident  from 
Acts  ch.  8.  The  hou-ehoid  of  Stephanus  it  is  said,  v^as  the 
first  fruits  of  Achaid,  i  Cor.  16,  15  ;  h.n  e,  then  as  jet,  there 
was  no  congregation  organized  ;  consequent!)  no  deacons  ap- 
pointed -,  so  that  Paid  hl-ns'lf  peribrnied  baptism.  This  also 
appli'^s  in  some  other  in-^tances. 

That  St.  Paul  was  not  sent  to  baptise,  is  no  evidence,  that 
baptism  is  not  the  means  of  regeneration  ;  although,  he  was 
appointed  as  a  means  to  regenerate  sinners.  Fur  if  he  did 
not  himself  baptise  ;  yet  he  instructed  the  people  with  respect 
to  ihe  nature,  and  design  of  baptism  ;  so  that,  if  he  was  not 
sent  to  baptise  ;  yet  he  wa<=  sent  to  preach  the  doctrine  of  bap- 
tism. Now  what  is  the  difierenee,  as  to  the  point  in  question  ; 
whether  Paul  was  sent  to  baptise,  or  whether  he  was  sent,  to 
preach  th*  doctrine  of  baptism  ;  ior  he  that  preaches  baptism, 
thereby  causes   peop'c  to  be  baptised  by  other  instruments. 

When  Pau'  pieached  repentance,  he  thereby  caused  people 
to  repent  ;  equal'y  so,  when  he  preached  !  aptism,  he  caused 
them  to  receive  baptism.  Will  my  opponent  deny,  that  Paul 
preache  1  the  doctrin"  o'.'  baptism  ?  The  fol  owing  text'-,  wdl 
shew,  that  Paul  dilig^^ntly  inculcated  the  importani  e  of  bap- 
tism :  *'Know'  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptised 
into  Je-us  Christ  w  ere  baptised  into  his  d*  ath  ?  Therefore 
we  ^re  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  det^th  ;  that  like  ^,s- 


Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Fa* 
ther,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life,*' 
Rom  6,  3,  4.  ''For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptised 
into  Chiist  have  put  on  Christ."  Gal.  8,  27.  Who  e*se 
was  it,  that  taught  the  Jailor  to  be  baptised,  but  Paul  and  Si- 
las. See  also  Eph.  5,  25,  26.  Tit.  3,  5,  These  texts  de- 
Sfribe  the  design  ot  baptism,  and  all  are  St.  Paul's  writings. 
Since  Mr.  M.  cannot  prove,  that  Paul  did  not  teach  the  peo- 
pie,  to  be  baptised  his  argument  amounts  to  nothing. 


SECTION  VIII. 

fo  this  ■cction  it  i«  shewn,  1st,  that  my  opponent  attempts  to  prove,  that 
because  regeQeration  is  the  effect  of  the  almighty  power  of  God  /  that 
therefore,  baptism  cannot  be  the  mean?  This  is  examined  .  2d,  An  in- 
vestigation of  his  criticism  on  John  3,  5.  3d,  An  investigation  of  the 
analogy  h«  speaks  of  bet\v£ep  %  natural  and  the  spiritual  birth. 

1,  Mr.  M,  says  p.  5,  6,  ^'From  the  above,  [having  just  be- 
fore quoted  a  lew  passages  ot  scripture  which  speak  ot  regen- 
eration] it  appears,  that  regeneration  is  an  internal,  radical 
change  of'  the  soul,  whereby  it  receives  a  new  birth  from  the 
death  of  sin,  into  the  life  of  righteousness — anew  creation 
from  that  corrupt  and  unholy  state,  in  which  we  are  by  sin 
and  transgression,  into  the  holy  and  righteous  image  of  our 
blessed  Redeemer — a  translation  from  the  power  of  darkness, 
in  which  we  are,  previous  to  such  a  change,  and  are  brought 
into  the  light  and  liberty  of  God's  dear  children.  We  there- 
by obtain  the  rorgiveness  of  ail  our  sins,  are  transformed,  by 
the  renewing  oi'our  minds,  into  the  image  of  God,  and  are  en- 
abled to  know  and  do  what  God's  will  is  concerning  us.  Now 
is  it  not  evident,  that  if  regeneration  implies  such  a  deep  and 
radical  change  of  hea't,  that  water  baptism,  nor  any  thing  ex- 
tern 1  can  effect  ?  Can  any  thing,  short  of  the  mighty  power 
orG>d,  or  operative  energies  of  that  almighty  spirit,  which 
jraisel  she  body  of  Christ  from  the  dead,  and  breathed  into 
thp  nostrils  of  the  first  man,  and  he  became  a  living  soul,  ef- 
Jeci  such  a  change  ?  such  a  death  to  sin,  ^nd  new  birth  unto 
righteousness  ?     I  think  it  is  evident  that  it  cannot.  " 

Answer.  It  is  admitted,  that  nothing  short  of  omnipotence 
sen  etfe^t  regeneration.  But  i«  this  a  reason,  that  baptism  can- 
|50fc  be  the  means  ?    No»    My  opponent  might  with  e<jual 


6S 

propriety  say,  it  requires  the  almighty  power  of  God  to  pro.- 
duce  a  man  ;  tor  that  reason  he  cannot  he  born  oi  a  mother* 
Or,  it  requires  the  almighty  power  of  God,  to  produce  a  corn- 
stalk ;  therefore,  the  planting  of  the  seed,  the  earth,  rain,  and 
sun-beams,  cannot  be  the  means  of  its  production.  What  man 
of  sound  principles  would  argue  in  such  a  manner  ?  In  the 
same  way  he  proves,  that  baptism  cannot  be  the  means  of  re- 
generation, viz  :  because  it  requires  the  omnipotence  of  God  to 
effect  it,  f  could  also  prove,  tU^t  a'l  means  in  nature  are  use- 
less, to  produce  any  thing  ;  because  nothing  can  be  produced 
without  omnipotence. 

Mr.  M  not  on  y  denies,  that  regeneration  is  effected  by 
baptism  ;  but  also  says,  that  nothing  external  can  effect  it. 
If  nothing  external  as  means,  which  here  is  the  point  in  ques- 
tion, can  effieet  regeneration  ;  then  it  is  evident,  that  the  ho- 
ly scriptures,  neither  as  they  are  written,  nor  as  they  are  prea- 
died,  as  well  as  baptism,  can  be  any  means  of  grace  ;  tor 
they  are  all  external.  My  opponent  by  denying  baptism,  to 
be  the  means  of  regeneration,  was  led  to  deny  all  external 
means  ;  hence,  the  holy  scriptures  ;  for  they  are  external  ; 
and  herein  he  manifests  himself,  either  as  a  fanatick,  or  as  a 
deist.  For  if  no  external  means  can  effect  regeneration,  it  is 
evident,  that  the  word  of  God  cannot,  as  it  is  also  external  * 
hence  according  to  this  theory,  if  God  regenerate  any  one,  he 
does  it  without  the  gospel  word,  baptism ,  or  any  other  means. 
This  at  once,  sets  aside  the  divine  validity  of  the  gospel.  If 
no  external  means  effect  regeneration,  then  it  is  in  vain,  to 
look  to  the  word  of  God,  as  well  as  to  b:ipti&m,  or  to  use  any 
other  means  ;  hence,  no  opportunity  at  all  to  be  saved  ;  un- 
less we  by  the  carnal,  and  wicked  works  of  our  reason  could 
merit  salvation  ;  otherwise,  we  would  have  to  lie  dormant,  like 
the  Epicurians  ;  or,  else  wait,  and  gaze  to  the  clouds,  to  expe- 
rience regeneration,  by  an  extraordinary  miracle. 

When  the  divine  efficacy  of  the  word  of  God,  and  baptism 
is  vindicated,  one  may  hear  multitudes,  who  profess  Christi- 
anity, as  if  they  were  pierced  through,  exclaim  :  Gotl  alone 
can  save  a  sinner  !  he  must  do  the  work  !  only  the  spirit !  the 
spirit  !  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  and  water  baptism  are 
man's  works  ;  for  men  preach  and  baptise  !  Such  denying, 
that  the  divine  blessings  are  contained  in  the  gospe!  word, 
and  baptism,  they  palliate  themselves,  either  by  some  carnal 
self-work  ;  such  as  they  call  praying,  and  corporeal  mortifi- 
cations, in  order  to  render  God  an  equivalent  for  salvation  ; 
or,  by  being  dormant,  until  their  disordered  imaginations  fi- 
gure to  thcnMelveg  heavenly  dreams,  and  their  minds  get  en- 


Vironed  by  satanic  illasions ;  they  are  sure  the  Ho^y  Spirit, 
has  began  iiis  wo'k  in  thsm,  an  1  in  some  tanatick  paroxysm  ; 
either,  m  a  gar  lea,  fteid,  grjve,  or  some  lonely  placf,  they 
imag  ne  tiiey  h 'ar  a sapeiii  i tura'  voice  ;  and  without  any  gos- 
pel WJrd,  o-  baptisiTiySf^nsibly  experience  regeneration  :  hence 
it  is  not  so  vary  sa 'prising,  svhy  the  word  ot  G')d,  as  it  is  re- 
vealed in  the  scriptares,  and  baptism,  when  exhibited  as 
means  ot"  g-ace,  sh  )uld  be  as  otfensive  to  tbem,  as  to  Thom- 
as Pain',  V  >Uair,  in  I  th^ir  rjsciples  !  D  "I'jded  men  I  can 
th^y  nit  see,  that  the  gospel  is  the  power  o  God  unto  sa  va- 
tion  to  everyone  that  bcl!eveth,  Rom.  1  16  ;  :tnd  that  bap- 
tism is  G>i's  own  institution,  and  includes  his  blessed  name, 
which  is  h'  nself.  NjtwUhstanding,  these  anaticks  crowding 
thnr  sermjns  with  what  they  dre.tmt,  and  felt  ;  and  thus 
preaching  themselves  instead  of  Christ  ;  yet,  lest  they  be 
viewed  as  inJiH  ds,  profess  to  b  dieve  the  scriptures,  a'ter  spir- 
itu  iHziig  sun  Iry  texts,  wh-ch  are  opposed  to  their  opinion, 
and  ai  ninister  baptism,  and  the  Lord's  Sapper,  as  a  form  of 
godl'n3SS.  Such  are  pointed  oat  by  the  apostle,  that  they 
"have  a  form  of  g>d  iness,  but  deny  the  power  thereof  " 
2  Tim.  S,  5.  Win  tiie  qiesion  is  put:  the  power  of 
what  d )  thiy  deny  ?  th^  answer  will  be,  o^"  the  form  of 
godliness  ;  for  the  anteciident,  is  the  form  ot"  godliness.  Did 
sach '"an  iticks  n  )t  p -o  "ess  th  ;  scriptures,  and  pretend  to  the 
admini  tration  o'the  sacraments,  there  would  be  nothing,  to 
distin-Tuish  them  from  the  scoffers  of  the  world  ;  and  they 
wou'd  apoear  in  their  infidel  oiiginality  ;  but  as  they  wish  to 
pass  for  Ghi-istians,  they  pretend  to  pay  some  regard,  as  they 
sav,  to  the  oat  varfi  gospel,  water  baptism,  and  the  Lord's 
Supper,  as  emb'ems  of  thi^ir  outwa-'d  pro^'ession ;  hence,  as 
a  form  of  their  gtd'iness  .•  but  that  there  is  any  saving 
power,  or  virtue  in  them,  they  utterly  deny,  and  agree  with 
mv  opponent,  th  it  nothing  external  can  effect  regeneration  ; 
and  thus  they  deny  the  power  of  the  form  of  god'iness,  which 
a^eording  to  the  ap  >stle,  is  the  true  characteristick  of  decei- 
vers, and  false  prophets. 

Without  shame,  and  without  paying  anv  attention  to  the 
good  sense  of  his  readers,  my  oppon  mt  says,  p.  40,  that  in 
the  use  of  the  means,  we  are  to  receive  the  bless-ng  ;  when 
before,  he  coald  have  the  effrontery  to  assert,  that  the  bles- 
sing is  not  contain  >d  in  the  means,  nor  that  any  thing  external 
eould  'feet  regeneration  ;  by  which  he  roundly  contradicts 
himself. 

2  In  mv  treatise,  I  quoted  the  words  of  our  Saviour  :  ''ve- 
HVy,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  except  a  man  be  bora  of  water 


55 

and  the  spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God, 
John  t^j  5  ;  and  tl  en  cbscrvec;,  that  the  v.  atei  aiid  the  spirit 
are  connectefl,  vn  hen  the  new  birth  is  eficcted.  V\  hereupon 
]Vir.  M.  observes  ; 

«  How  this  proves  that  water  baptism  is  a  heavenly  flood 
of  ngenerytion,  I  see  net.  >ieiiher  cun  1  see  h(  w  this  proves 
that  it  is  die  orrlinury  n  eans  ;  nur  ht  w  it  plainl}  slow  s  that 
water  and  spirit  must  be  connected  v  hen  tl  e  re w  hirih  is  ef- 
fected.  For  Ist,  were  I  to  grant  that  baptism  is  a  meims, 
yet  the  means  and  the  end  are  not  the  san  e  :  and  a  ^o,  the 
m  ans  may  be.  and  often  are  used,  and  the  end  not  obtained  ; 
therefore,  baptism  is  not  rt  general  en.  2.  It  bipt>n  is  a 
Bvans  at  all,  it  is  not  the  urdinaiy  n  tans,  (as  \m  h<iVf  ahea- 
dy  shewn)  be  ause  there  are  other  means,  su(h  as  preach  ng 
fhe  gjspel,&c.  that  commonly  brmti  us  to  cbta  n  ihe  same 
etid  ;  and  so  n^times  all  the  means  fai  ,  and  the  new  birth  is 
never  eft'3etel  in  the  hearts  oi  many.  8  Our  Lord  told  Kic- 
olemus,  'Except  a  man  be  born  of  \Nater  and  the  spirit,  he 
cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  '  >Jicodtnus  v  as  a 
Piiarisee,  and  had  attended  to  the  washings  and  purifications 
under  the  law  ;  and  I  have  thought;  was  ot  the  sarr  e  opin- 
ion  that  Mr.  H.  is,  viz  : — That  water  estprnal  y  a)»plied,  by 
-which  they  were  cleansed  fiom  the  filthiness  of  the  flesh,  vas 
sufficient.  Ghri-t  to  convince  him  of  this  error,  said,  'Ex- 
cept a  man  be  born  of  water  and  the  spirit,  &:c. — of  the  water, 
by  which  he  is  external'y  made  clean,  as  a  figure,  or  sign  ; 
and  of  the  spirit  as  the  thing  signified  by  water,  whereby  he 
is  rent' wed  in  the  spirit  of  his  mind,  and  made  internally 
clean  by  d  vine  grace,  he  never  can  enter  into  ihe  k'ngdona 
oi'  G  )d.  Hence  water,  in  this  place,  was  referred  to  by  our 
Lord,  as  an  emblem  or  sign,  to  show  Nicodemus  the  nature 
of  that  internal  birth  that  must  take  place  in  the  Soul,  effected 
by  the  spirit  of  God.  " 
'"Tliatthis  is  the  meaning  of  Christ,  I  think  will  appear, 
1st,  from  St.  Paul's  words.  See  Heb.  10,  22  :  "Having 
our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,  and  our  bodies 
washed  with  pure  water.  '  Here  the  apostle  speaks  of  the  in- 
ternal and  CKternal  washing  'Having  the  heart  sprink'ed, 
&c.  relat'^d  to  that  internal  wo.k,  wrought  in  us  by  the  ope- 
rations of  the  grace  and  spirit  of  God,  whereby  the  conscience 
is  cleansed  from  all  evil,  and  the  soul  renewed  in  the  image  of 
God.  Our  bodies  washed  with  pure  water,  related  to  the  ex- 
ternal washmg practised  amongthe  Jews,  which  was  emblem- 
atical of  that  internal  purity  that  they  must  obtain,  in  order  to 
be  acceptable  worshippers  of  God,   Htnce  we  must  be  born  of 


55 

the  water  and  spirit ;  i.  e.  we  must  be  made  inwardly  and  out- 
ward y  holy.  See  alsoHeb  ix.  9.  14.  Hence  I  think  Christ 
had  no  reference  to  the  Christian  baptism,  as  practised  under 
the  present  dispensation  ;  for  the  Christian  baptism  was  not  in- 
stituted  at  that  time;  therefore,  Nicodemus  was  entirely  un- 
acquainted with  it.  Of  course,  Cluist  could  not  have  referred 
him  to  an  ordinance  that  was  not  in  being  at  the  time,  as  an 
ordinary  means  by  which  he  was  then  to  be  regenerated  and 
born  again  But  8.  Nicodemus  was  a  Jew,  and  of  course  well 
acquainted  with  the  Jowish  rituals,  by  which  they  were  wash- 
ed and  purified  irom  the  filthiness  of  the  flesh,  and  prepared 
to  enter  into  the  worshipping  congregation  of  the  Lord. 
Christ  refers  to  this  as  a  figure,  sign,  or  emblem,  of  that  in- 
ternal purification  performed  by  the  spirit ,  by  which  the  soul 
is  cleansed  from  the  filthiness  of  sin,  renewed  in  the  image  of 
God,  and  prepared  to  enter  into  the  congregation  of  the  Lord 
above.  Hence,  'Except  a  man  be  born  of  water,'  by  which 
he  is  externally  purified  from  the  filthiness  of  the  flesh,  as  a 
figure  or  sign  of  an  internal  grace — *and  of  the  spirit/  where, 
by  the  conscience  is  cleansed  from  dead  works,  and  the  soul 
renewed  in  the  image  of  God,  as  the  thing  signified,  he  can- 
not enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God. ''  p.  28,  29,  80. 

Answer.  That  I  am  of  the  opinion,  as  my  opponent  asserts, 
that  water  externally  applied  to  take  away  the  filth  of  the  flesh, 
is  sufficient,  is  a  most  barefaced  slander.  Have  I  not  fre- 
quently said,  that  the  virtue  of  baptism  consisted  not  in  the 
V  ater,  but  m  the  co'i  mand,  and  name  of  God,  with  which  it 
is  connected  ?  "N thither,  did  my  opponent  prove  by  any  text, 
or  cir^'umstance,  that  ^Nicodemus  was  of  this  opinion.  For 
proof  he  offers  :  /  thought  Nicodemus  was  of  this  opinion, 
and  upon  this  he  ibunds  his  interpretation  :  viz.  that  Christ 
intended  to  convince  him  of  this  error,  by  saying  except  a 
man  be  born  of  the  water  and  the  spirit,  &c.  He  ought  first 
to  have  proved,  that  this  was  the  error  of  Nicodemus,  before 
he  asserts,  that  Christ  intended  to  convince  him  of  the  same  ; 
but  instead  of  this,  he  dispaches  it  by  *  /  thought'  !  That 
Nicodemus  was  well  acquainted  with  the  washings,  and  puri- 
fications under  the  law,  is  admitted  ;  but  that  this  should  be  a 
reason,  why  he  believed,  that  the  external  application  of  wa- 
ter was  sufficient,  is  very  inconclusive  :  for  we  might  as  well 
say,  Mosos,  David,  or  any  other  saint,  under  the  old  testa- 
ment dispensation  believed,  that  the  external  application  ot  wa- 
ter was  sufficient  ;  because  they  were  acquainted  with  the 
washings  and  purifications  under  the  law.  According  to  my 
opponent,  Nicodemus  was  acquainted  with  the  legal  purifica- 


tions  ;  if  so,  why  then  should  our  Saviour  have  been  so  pat- 
ticular,  to  intorni  him  of  the  necessity  of  being  regeneiat* d  by 
such,  and  the  spirit  ?  Would  it  not  have  been  sult.cient,  if  he 
only  had  urged  the  necessity,  of  being  regeneiated  by  ihe  spir- 
it ?  "And  all  the  people  that  heard  hin:,  and  the  puhlicanSy 
justified  God,  being  baptised  with  the  baptism  oi  John.  But 
the  pharisees  and  lawyers  rejected  the  counsel  ot  God  aguii.st 
themsetves,  being  not  baptised  of  him  "  Luke  7  2.9,  oO, 
This  text  shews,  tliat  although,  the  people  justiHed  God,  be- 
ing buptised  ;  yet,  the  pharisees  and  lawyers  rejected  this 
coun-el  of  God,  against  themselves,  and  were  not  baptised. 
Nicodemus  was  a  pharisee  ;  hence  had  not  rejected  the  cuinal 
washings  unrier  the  law  ;  but  appears  to  have  been  a  stranger 
to  the  dispensatiun  of  the  gospel.  John's  baptism  was  the 
counsel  of  GjH,  .nd  the  introduction  to  the  kingdom  of  the 
Messiah  ;  hence  how  rational  t  was,  that  he  instructed  Nico- 
demus,  with  respect  to  its  necessity  and  importance  ?  There 
is  an  obvious  difference  between  the  opinion,  as  entertained 
by  the  pharisees,  with  respect  to  baptism,  and  the  doctrines, 
which  I  incu'cate  They  rejected  baptism  ;  hence,  must  have 
viewed  it  as  useless  ;  whereus,  even  according  to  the  testimo- 
ny of  my  opponent,  I  venerate  baptism  too  highly  :  for  I  Ci  n- 
sider  it  as  a  means  of  salvation.  Mr.  Moore's  doctrine,  is  lar 
more  agreeable  to  the  opinion  of  the  pharisee-  ;  for  they  des- 
pised baptism,  which  ^vas  the  counsel  of  God  ;  and  what 
does  he  ? — He  esteems  baptism  nothing  but  a  little  water,  ar.d 
has  called  it  Henkel's  heavenly  flood  ;  and  although,  he  him- 
self baptises  ;  yet,  representing  baptism  so  mean,  and  insig. 
nificant,  he  virtually  rejects  it  as  the  counsel  oi  God  ;  and 
thus  ranks  very  highly  with  the  pharisees.  Yet,  herein  the 
ph  irisees  acted  more  consistent  ;  for  as  much,  as  they  despi- 
sed baptism,  they  did  not  all  practise  it  ;  whereas  my  oppo- 
nent counts  it  nothing  but  water  ;  yet,  he  administers  such  a 
despicable  thing. 

That  tlie  water  of  which  Christ  spake  alludes  to  the  Jew- 
ish washings  is  by  no  means  proved  by  Heb.  10,  22  :  ''  hav- 
ing our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,  and  our  bo- 
dies washed  with  pure  water. "  The  writer  of  this  epistle, 
was  n>t  speaking  to  Jews,  as  such  that  were  under  the  cere- 
monial law,  and  thus  subject  to  the  carnal  washings,  but  to 
such,  as  were  Christians  under  the  gc-pel  dispensation.  The 
phrase  *'our  bodies  washed  with  pure  water, "  is  in  such  a 
conneKion,  that  it  cannot  relate  to  the  legal  purifications.  To 
elucidate  this  the  context  is  quoted  :  —  "Having,  therefore, 
brethren,  boldness  to  enter  into  the  holiest  by  the  blood  of  Je- 

H 


^\iiB,  by  a  new  and  living  way,  which  he  hath  consecrated 
for  us  through  the  vai',  that  is  to  say,  his  flesh  ;  and  having 
an  high  priest  over  the  house  of  God  ;  let  us  draw  near  with 
a  true  heart,  in  full  assurance  ol  taith,  having  oui  hearts  sprin- 
kled from  an  evil  conscience,  and  our  bodies  washed  witi  puie 
waier. "  v.  19-22.  By  whom  sliouM  the  Hebrews  enter 
into  tne  holiest  ?  Ans.  Not  by  the  blood  oi  calves  and  goats  ; 
but  by  the  blood  oi  Jesus  VVhat  is  called  the  new  and  liv- 
ing way  ?  Ans  That  which  was  conseciated  by  his  fleehv 
Who  is  the  high  priest  over  the  hou^e  of  G.)d  ?  Ans.  Nei- 
ther i\.aron.  nor  his  sons  ;  but  Jesus  Chiist.  To  whom,  and 
in  what  manner  should  ihey  draw  near?  Ans.  To  Christ, 
wiih  a  true  heart,  in  full  assurance  of  taith,  having  our  hearts 
sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience^  and  our  bodies  wash<d 
witli  pure  water.  What  have  the  Jewish  washings  to  do 
with  the  Cliristian  dispensation  ?  or  with  the  high  priest  Jesus 
Christ  ?  or  with  the  full  assurance  of  faith  ?  Astoni.>-hing  ! 
that  the  w  -iter  of  this  epistle,  should  congratulate  the  Hebrew 
Christians,  upon  their  being  washed  by  the  abrogated  rites  of 
the  ceremonial  law  ;  or,  give  them  encouragements  to  draw 
n'^ar  the  high  priest,  Christ  ;  l?eeau;-e  they  were  washed  with 
the  sa.ne  I  Where  is  the  Christian  divine,  who  does  not 
know,  that  at  tlvat  time  the  Jewish  ceremonies  were  abroga- 
ted ?  And  even.  vNhen  some  ot  the  converts  were  wont  to 
hold  some  O'  the  legal  ceremonies,  and  to  incorporate  them 
with  Christianity,  the  apostles,  instead  of  encouraging  them  in 
it.  they  rebuked  them  ;  as  for  instance  ;  St.  Paul,  told  the 
Galatians  the  impropriety  of  being  cii  eumcised  ;  and  exhorted 
the  Colissiane,  not  lo  suffer  themselves  to  be  judged,  with  re- 
spect to  meat,  drink,  ho'idays,n'^w  moons,  and  sabbath  days. 
Col.  2,  16.  If  then  already,  the  apostles  discoun:enanced 
those  abrogated  rites,  w  hat  manner  o'  consistency  can  there 
be,  in  assorting,  that  the  washing  with  pure  water,  as  applied 
to  the  Hebrew  Christians,  relate  s  to  the  Jew  ish  washings  un- 
der the  law  ?  He  indeed,  must  possess  a  Judaizing  mind, 
■who  cannot  discover,  that  the  pure  water,  with  which  the 
H'i'hrews  were  washed,  is  a  Christian  inst'tution  :  hence  bap- 
tism. The  reference  which  my  opponent  made  to  Heb.  9, 
9,  14,  does  not  establish  his  aranment  ;  lor  these  texts  do  not 
prove,  that  the  Cbrist-an  Hebrews,  were  subject  to  observe 
these  carnal  ordinan  es  ;  but  thev  were  only  instructed,  that 
such  were  prefiRnriitir>ns  o'the  Mood  of  Christ. 

To  s-iy,  that  the  Christian  baptism  was  not  instituted  at  the 
time,  Christ  conversed  with  Ni^oHemos,  is  no  evidence,  that 
^  water,  of  which  he  here  speaks  alludes  to  the  Jewish  wasli- 


59 

ings.  "Neither  has  my  opponent  proved  this  assertion.  It  is 
said  :  ''Alter  these  things  came  Jesus  and  his  disciples  into 
the  land  o  Jiidea  ;  aiid  there  he  tarried  with  ihen;,  .ntl  bap- 
tised. "  John  S,  22.  A  ler  these  things  :  viz.  alter  Chri^l■s 
conversation  w  th  MicodenuiSj  which  is  immediately  i"ccorded 
in  the  preeeeding  part  cf  this  chapter  v  '■^Q —  "And  thty 
(Ji>hn>  diseipies)  came  unto  John,  and  saidunio  hln ,  Rabbi, 
he  that  WMs  with,  thee  beyuid  Jon-an,  to  v  honi  thtu  barest 
witness,  behold,  the  same  baptiseth.and  all  me^i^comeio  him.** 
Anil  ch.  4,  V  t)2,  " '.Vhen  iheretore  the  L>>rd  knew  how  the 
piiaiisees  had  'leard  tha"  Jesus  made  and  baptisi-d  more  dis» 
ciples  ihan  Joim,  (Th^ngh  Jesus  himse'i"bapti,-ed  not,  bui  his 
discip'es,  &c.  "  I'hese  texts  undeniably  prove,  that  Christ 
baptised  by  the  agency  ot  his  diseipies  bi  fore  his  crucihxion, 
and  before  John,  the  baptist  was  imprisoned  ;  hence,  cotem- 

E.irary  with  Nicodemus.  But  suppose,  that  Christ  did  not 
aptise  be  ore  his  conversiition  with  Ni^odemns  ;  yet,  it  does 
not  prove,  that  he  could  not  reier  to  baptism,  wh'ch  it  not  then 
already  should  have  been  in  vogue  ;  yet,  inmiediatcK'  after- 
wards took  place.  So  that  it  cannot  with  propriety,  be  f-aid, 
that  Christ  did  not  baptise,  cotemporary  wiih  Nicodemus  ;  for 
it  is  sufficiently  obvious,  th  :t  Christ  baptised  in  the  days  of 
John  the  baptist.  Again,  John  baptised,  before  he  inaugu- 
rated Christ  ai  Jordan,  a^  ahisrh  priest  ;  hence,  before  Christ 
appeared  as  a  pub'ick  teacher.  See  Luke  3.  John  1.  Is  ,1  pos- 
sible, that  Nicodemus  should  nut  have  know^l  any  thing  of 
this  baptism  ;  when  in  his  day,  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea, 
went  out  tc  him  to  be  baptised  ?  Was  not  John's  baptism  per- 
formed with  water?  Yes:  most  certainly.  But  was  it  a 
Jewish  wa«:hing  ?  No.  For  if  it  had,  it  would  liave  been 
more  ancient  than  Joltn  ;  neither  would  the  lawyeis.,  and 
pharisees  have  rejected  it  ;  because  they  were  very  attentive 
to  the  rituals  O'  the  law.  John  says,  "I  indeed  baptise  you 
with  water  unto  repentance  "  Matth,  3,  11.  It  is  evident., 
that  many  of  those,  whom  John  baptised,  were  before,  in  an 
impenitent  state  ;  fw  he  calls  them  a  generation  of  vipers,  v.  7  ; 
and  exhorts  them  to  repent.  "Now,  since  John  said  unto  them, 
•I  baptise  you  with  water  unto  repentance,  it  shews  that  bap- 
tism was  a  means  of  repentance.  Aga'n,  "And  he  (John) 
came  into  all  the  country  about  Jordan,  pre-achingr  the  bap- 
tism of  repentance,  for  the  remission  of  sins."  Luke  8,  8, 
'•Then  said  Paul,  John  verily  baptised  with  the  baptism  oi  re- 
pentance, &c.  "  Acts  19,  4.  These  texts,  do  not  only  shew, 
that  John's  baptism  was  unto  repentance  ;  but  is  al-o  positivc- 
}y  called  Q.*^bajptism  o/ repenia?»ce  "    What  can  a  baptisa* 


60 

of  repentance  otherwise  be,  than  a  baptism,  which  effects  pe» 
pentance  ?  which  is  the  very  same  as  a  flood  of  regeneration, 
when  I  say,  the  mother  of  a  child,  1  mean  the  child  was 
boin  of  the  mother  :  baptism  of  repentance,  is  parsed  in  the 
same  manner  ;  hence  a  baptism,  which  is  the  cause  of  repen. 
tance.  Here  I  must  observe,  tiiat  whereas,  my  opponent  has 
ridiculed  ihe  title  of  my  treatise  :  viz.  "heavenly  flood  ot  re- 
generation  "  as  unfounded  in  the  scripturt-s  ;  yet,  as  J«.hn's  bap- 
tism was  positively  a  baptism  of  repentance  ;  and  by  bapiism, 
we  have  the  remission  for  sins,  it  is  the  very  same  thing,  as  a 
flood  of  regeneration.  This  one  expression  '^baptism  of  re- 
pentance," as  applied  to  John's  baptism,  with  water,  is  suffi- 
cient to  refute  all  the  sophisms,  of  those,  who  deny  baptism  to 
be  a  means  of  regeneration. 

J  )hn's  baptism  did  not  essentially  differ  from  that,  which  is 
in  vogue  since  the  Saviour's  resmrection  ;  for  the  spirit  also 
accompanied  it,  as  it  was  a  baptism  of  repentance  ;  for  with- 
out the  spirit,  there  can  be  no  gc^nui^ne  repentance.  It  belongs 
to  the  office  of  the  Holy  Gaost,  to  guide  into  all  truth,  to  glo- 
rify, and  receive  of  Ciii-ist,  and  to  shew  it  unto  his  people  ; 
J->hn  lo,  13,  15.  Now,  John  could  only  point  to  Christ,  as 
*'the  lamb  of  G  >d,  which  t  iketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world  ; " 
bur  not  as  a  S.tviour  already  crucified  ;  and  as  having  "by 
himst'lf  purged  onr  sins,  and  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of 
the  maj-^sty  on  high '  ;  hence,  J  Jhn's  b  iptism  could  not  in- 
clude those  things,  a*?  a'realy  accomplished  ;  and  herein,  the 
baptism  after  our  Saviour's  resurrection  is  superior  ;  because 
it  inc'udes  the  work  of  redemption,  as  fu'ly  accomplished. 
!N  >w,  if  John's  bapt  sm  could  not  include  the  work  of  re- 
demption, as  already  accomplisbed,  and  yet  was  a  baptism  of 
repentance,  how  much  more,  should  not  the  baptism  after- 
wards, be  a  means  of  repentance  ;  hence,  of  regeneration  ; 
for  it  embraces  a  Saviour,  as  having  fully  accomplished  the 
work  of  redempti  tn,  and  thus  superior. 

Suppose  my  opponent's  theory  be  received,  that  the  water, 
of  which  Chii-^t  spake  to  Nicodemus,  referred  to  the  Jew- 
ish washings  under  the  law  ;  then  the  text  would  have  to 
read  :  *'V'*rily,  veri'y,  I  say  unto  thee,  ''Except  a  n>an  be 
born  of  the  Jewish  was'>in^s  under  the  law,  &  of  the  spirit  he 
cannot  enter  into  the  kmgdom  of  God  "  Hence,  not  only 
Nicodemus  ;  but  any  man,  must  be  born  again  of  the  Jew- 
ish washings,  and  of  the  spirit  ;  or  e'se,  not  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of"  Gofl»  But,  who  can  have  the  least  idea,  that  our  bles- 
sed  S  tviour  encouraged  the  Jewish  washings  in  the  kingdom 
ifff  pod,  which  was  then,  about  to  take  place  under  the  gog- 


pel  dispensation  ?  Or,  what  Christian  can  believe,  that  who* 
soever  is  not  born  again,  o1  the  Jewish  washings,  and  o!  the 
spirit  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  Oi  God  ?  All  the  Jfw. 
ish  rites,  were  abrogated  under  this  dispensation  ;  notv\ith- 
sianding,  my  opponent ;  because  he  is  determined,  not  to  own 
baptism  as  the  means  of  regeneration,  makes  our  Savif/ur 
say,  that  except  a  man  be  born  of  the  Jewish  wash  ngs  under 
iixe  law,  and  of  the  spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God,  which  is  contrary  to  the  whole  gospel  dispensation  ;  in 
short  it  is  nonsense.  That  he  says,  the  \\  ater  is  a  sign,  or  fi- 
gure of  the  spirit,  does  not  make  the  'ase  consistt-nt  ;  for  if  so, 
then  still  the  water,  as  used  in  the  Jewish  washings,  would 
be  a  sign,  and  thus  none,  bat  those,  who  had  t*'is  Jewish  sign, 
and  the  spirit,  can  enter  into  the  kingdom  oi  God.  What  an 
absurdity!  Even,  according  to  this  theory,  water,  and  the 
spirit,  would  be  connected  in  the  production  of  the  new  birth, 
against  which  my  opponent  contends  ;  yet,  he  had  the  misfor- 
tune,  to  substitute  the  Jewish  washings,  instead  of  a  Christian 
ordinance.  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water,  which  accor- 
ding to  Mr.  M.  refers  to  a  Jewish  washing,  and  oi  the  spir. 
it,  &c.  by  which  he  renders  the  Jewish  washings  necessary^ 
and  as  connected  with  the  spirit.  NotviithstanHing,  it  is  not 
his  intention,  to  connect,  but  to  keep  them  separate  ;  so  that, 
the  water  is  to  effect  an  outward  bodily,  and  the  spirit  an  in- 
ward spiritual  purity.  If  so,  then  thtie  would  be  two  new 
births  :  the  one  would  be  effected  by  the  Jewish  washings, 
wh  ch  would  shew,  the  body  regenerated  ;  and  the  other 
would  be  the  regeneration  of  the  soul,  separately  by  the  spirit. 
If  this  be  the  case,  how  will  it  be  with  a  man,  whos-e  body 
is  thus  washed,  and  regenerated  ;  but  his  soul  has  never  been 
regenerated  by  the  spirit  ?  Will  his  regenerated  body  enter 
into  heaven,  and  the  unregenerated  soul  into  hell  ? 

I  also  know,  that  many  of  those,  who  do  not  with  Mr.  M» 
explain  the  water  in  this  text,  as  relating  to  the  Jewish  wash, 
ings  ;  but  admit,  that  it  relates  to  baptismal  water  ;  yet,  they 
separate  the  water,  and  the  spirit,  and  say,  as  the  water  wash- 
es away  the  fi'th  of  the  flesh,  it  represents  the  inward  c'ean- 
sing  of  the  soul,  by  the  spirit,  and  that,  when  a  man  is  bapti. 
sed,  he  is  born  of  the  water,  into  the  outward  church  of  Christ ; 
but  not  of  the  sp'rit,  into  the  true  invisible  church.  Such  also, 
have  two  new  births,  and  two  kingdoms  of  Christ.  It  is  both 
contrary  to  fact,  and  scripture,  that  as  the  water  trkes  away 
the  filth  of  the  flesh,  so  it  is  to  represent  the  inward  purifica- 
tion. For,  if  the  soul  gets  washed  no  cleaner,  than  tne  body 
^s  in  baptism,  it  must  ever  remain  filthy  ;  for  when  a  man  is 


62 

JJaptised  ;  either,  by  effasion,  or  immersion,  it  has  no  effect 
ppon  the  tilth  o  the  ti  sli.  Those  ministers  of  emblems,  n 
order,  to  represent  this  internal  purity  by  the  outward  wash- 
ing, ought  to  :ake  more  pains,  to  cleanse  the  bodies  of  their 
Oa:ulidites,  for  baptism  than  they  do.  In  order  to  eft'ect  this, 
they  must  app'y  water  with  »<oap,  or  some  other  purifying 
Ingredients,  and  not  ceise  »perating  up  in  them,  until  they  are 
berrectly  clean  It  is  nothing  but  a  lying  representation,  for 
thi^  baptismal  water  loes  not  cleanse  the  body.  It  is  also  con- 
trary to  scripture — " T  le  ''ke  figure  whereunto,  even  baptism, 
doth  also  now  save  us  (not  the  putting  au  ay  of  the  tilth  of  the  flesh, 
but  the  answer  of  a  good  con  Men^^e  towards  God)  by  the  re- 
«urrection  of  J*-;us  Gh-ist. "  1  P.it.  3,  21.  The  apostle,  in 
this  text  denies,  that  baptism  is  the  putting  away  of  tl  e  filth  of 
the  tlesh  ;  wh  M'eas  the  multitudes  of  emblem  preachers  say  it 
is.  by  whi^h  they  contradict  the  word  of  God.  Where  is 
there  any  proof  f  )r  two  churches  ?  Si.  Pan  says  "There  is 
one  body  an  I  one  spirit. "  Eph.  4,  4.  This  body  is  his 
church —  1  Cor.  12  There  are  no  two  separate  churches  ; 
and  thoug'i  there  be  many  branches,  "ailed  separate  churches  ; 
yet  are  they  all  bu^  one  Suppose  even  the  professors  of  faith, 
whom  \Vf  m  ly  see,  should  be  called  a  visible  church,  in  order 
to  distinguish  them  from  tho^c.  that  arc  not  known  ;  or.  such 
as  are  in  g'ory  ib  >ve  ;  yet  th's  visible  church  is  but  a  part  of 
^he  one  church  and  by  no  means  a  distinct  body.  By  the  pro- 
fessors  o?"  faith  in  this  place,  I  do  not  mean  hypocrites  ;  but 
genuine  Christians.  But  suppose  the  outward  church,  to  be 
distinct  from  theti-ue  invisible  church,  then  the  question  may  be 
ask'-d,  does  this  ouiwar<l  chui-ch,  consist  ot  Christians,  or  of 
hypocrites  ?  If  it  consist  of  Chidstians,  and  as  baptism  makes 
a  man  a  member  of  the  outward  church  ;  hence,  it  must  also 
make  him  a  0  iristian  whieh  is  nothing  short  of  being  regen- 
eratf-d  But,  if  it  consists  of  hypocrites  ;  then  baptism  would 
make  every  man,  that  receivfs  it  a  hypocrite  !  Here,  again 
the  ministers  of  emblems  get  into  a  di'emma.  They  must  ei- 
ther own,  <har  the  outward  church  consists  of  Christians,  and 
thus  must  grant,  that  every  baptised  man  is  a  real  Christian  ; 
b 'Cause  baptism  makes  him  a  member  of  that  church,  which 
is  composed  of  Christians  ;  or  else,  must  say,  that  it  consists 
of  hvpicrites  ;  if  so,  th^n  all  persons  let  them  be  whom  they 
may,  that  are  baptised  must  be  hypocrites  ;  because  they 
would  be  made  members  of  a  church,  that  is  composed  of 
hypocrites.  That  baptism  is  to  make  any  one  a  Christian, 
i.  e.  a  resC'^neraed  person,  is  what  those  deny  ;  and  for  this 
pui-pose  have  invented  a  separate,  outward  church,  into  wliicb 


6^ 

one  is  lo  be  born  again  by  water,  as  a  sign  of  an  otber  birtH^ 
by  which  one  is  to  enter  intc  an  cthtr  chuich.  Poci  men  ! — - 
emblems,  atter  emblems,  have  bliiidec  ttin^i,  like  the  veil  of 
Moses  the  Jews  ;  so  that  they  catmot  see  that  this,  distinct 
outward  chuich  must,  either  c(  nsiM  ot  Chi  stiii.s.  or  ct  h}po- 
crites  ;  and  that  ii  it  consist  ol  Christians,  that  bapti^n!  n  akes 
one  a  Cliristian.  which  is  the  vi  rj  thii  g  af^^a  r&t  v\hichthey 
contend  :  but  ii  it  consist  ot  hyJ)Ocr^te^,  that  they  enrol  tht  m- 
selves  among  their  nuniber  ;  ioi  thty  j-k  ies-s  to  belcng  to  the 
outward  church  ^Jeiiher  is  it  poss  bie  to  be  extricated,  by 
saying  the  outward  church  einsists  ot  both.  Christians  and 
hypocrites  ;  lor  if  so,  baptism  wou'd  either,  make  us  Chris- 
tians ;  or,  else  hypocrites  ;  or  else  both  ! 

Ml'.  M.  says,  p.  80,  The  same  observations,  will  apply  to  the 
prophecy  of  Ezekiel,  whfre  the  Lord  says:  'Then  will  I  sprin- 
k  e  clean  water  upon  you,  &  ye  shall  be  clean  ;  from  all  your 
filthiness  &  irom  your  idols  will  I  cleanse  you.  A  new  heart 
also  will  I  give  you,  md  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you  ; 
and  I  wiil  take  away  the  stonv  heart  out  o«  v<nir  flesh,  and  t 
will  give  you  an  heart  of  flesh. '  Ezek  XXXVI  25,26, 
Water  I n  this  place  must  be  used  tiguiatively,  as  a  sign,  or 
emblem  of  the  grace  of  God,  by  wl .i<h  it  is  purged  from  an 
evil  conscience,  cleansed  ficm  all  the  filthiness  oi  sin,  and  roni 
all  its  idols  :  (or  a  renewed  heart,)  and  a  new  spirit,  (or,  a 
new  principle,  of  love  to  God,  and  good  will  to  men)  is  given 
and  put  within  us  ;  the  stony  heart  also  is  taken  away, — that 
hard,  obdurate,  disobedient  heart,  s  taken  av\ay.  and  a  heart 
of  flesh,  (or  soft,  humble,  teachable,  and  ol  edi<  nt  heart,)  is 
given  in  its  place. — This  certainly  mu&t  be  the  true  meaning 
of  that  scripture. 

Answer.  That  my  opponent  snys,  water  in  this  place  must 
bo  used  figuratively,  .is  a  sign,  or  emblem  ot  the  grace  o:  God  ; 
and  that  the  sprinkling  with  cleiin  water  must  be  figurative, 
or  significant,  of  the  sprinkling  the  heart  with  the  spirit  of 
God,  he  has  arbitrarily  asserted  ;  but  has  not  proved  it  ;  un- 
less we  take  his  ipse  dixit  for  evidence  I  do  not  deny,  that 
there  are  many  figurative  expressions  in  the  scriptures  ;  but 
when  a  man  asserts,  that  a  passage  is  figurative,  he  ought  to 
prove  it ;  either,  by  other  texts,  or  the  context,  or  by  the  ru'es 
of  sacred  criticism.  Some  expositors  are  veiy  expert,  when 
a  passage  of  scripture  is  in  their  way,  to  turn  it  into  a  meta- 
phor, without  any  authority  ;  although,  it  should  be  at  the  ex- 
pense of  all  the  rules  oflan-juade.  According  to  this  rule  of 
exposition,  the  most  important  truths  may  be  explained  away» 
?wd  the  scriptm-es  turned  intg  ridicule  ;  as  for  instance,  whta 


04 

it  reads  r  "thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery  ;"  "thou  shaltnot 
steal,"  I  m  ght  by  the  same  art  say,  this  only  has  a  reference 
to  metaphorical  adultery,  and  thett ;  and  that  therefore,  no  re- 
al adultery,  and  theft  ure  prohibiied.  In  this  way  our  pres- 
ent fanaticks  impose  on  the  people,  and  lead  them  into  error. 
The  planest  evidence,  they  arbitrarily  force  hito  a  figure  ;  and 
then  persuade  many  of  the  laity,  that  because  there  are  some 
metaphorical  expressions  in  the  scriptures,  that  they  have  the 
liberty,  without  any  evidence  to  make-  every  thing  figurative, 
that  thwarts  their  preconceived  opinion:  To  const, ue,  the 
water  spoken  ©"^in  this  text,  to  mean  an  emblem  of  the  spirit, 
is  contrary  to  ihe  rules  of  language.  I  shall  quote  it  herea- 
gain  : — "  Then  will  I  sprinkle  cle.jn  water  upon  you,  and  ye 
shall  be  c'ean  ;  from  all  your  filthiness  and  trom  your  idols 
will  I  c'eanseyou.  A  new  heart  a^so  vvil.  I  give  you,  and  a 
new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you  ;  and  1  will  take  away  the 
stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  an  heart  of 
flesh.  "  Now,  if  the  water  in  this  passage  is  to  signify,  the 
sprinkling  of  the  heart,  uith  the  spirit  ;  why  then  is  it  added, 
*'  a  new  heait  also  will  I  give  you  and  a  new  spirit  ?  "  If 
this  gloss  be  true,  then  the  text  should  read  :  "then  will  I 
sprinkle,  that  is  I  wi  1  sprinkle  the  spirit  upon  you,  and  ye 
shall  be  c'ean  ;  from  all  your  filthiness,  and  from  all  your 
idols  will  I  cleanse  you.  A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you, 
and  a  new  spirit.  '^  Thus  tlie  water,  would  be  made  to  mean 
the  same  as  spirit,  which  would  be  the  same,  as  saying,  that 
they  should  be  sprinkled  with  the  spirit,  und  al?^o  a  new  spirit 
should  to  them  be  given.  What  an  unreasunabe  tautology  ! 
What  need  was  there,  to  represent  the  spirit  under  the  figure 
of  water,  and  then  immediate'y  mention  the  spirit  literally  ? 
Are  there  two  spirits  :  the  one  to  be  represented  under  the  fi- 
gure of  water,  and  the  other  the  spirit  literally  ?  Or,  did  the 
prophet,  like  a  silly  man,  in  the  same  text  repeat  one  thing 
twice,  only  by  difterent  expressions  ?  lithis  text  is  to  make 
any  correct  meaning,  water,  must  mean  water  ;  and  spirit, 
spirit.  As  this  text  is  a  prediction  of  something  under  the 
new  testam  nt  dispensation,  the  water  and  the  spirit,  must  al- 
lude to  some  institution,  that  consists  of  the  same,  wkich  is 
no  other  than  baptisn^. 

Mr.  M.  says,  page  81,  "  Mr.  H's  ideas  on  this  passage  are 
so  f'xtrava<Tant,  th;u  they  are  hardly  worth  troubling  the  reader 
with  •,  but  I  will  give  thom  in  a  condensed  form.  Heavenly 
flood  pag'"  25  he  >-ays:  ^-  Now  it  is  likely  the  prophet  alludes 
to  such  hearts  as  were  under  the  stony  law,  or  that  had  the 
spirit  of  bondage  to  fear,  from  which  they  should  be  liberate*^ 


6& 

under  the  sfospel,  by  the  sprinkling  of  clean  water  and  the  relv 
spirit.  "  The  law,"  he  says,  "  was  engiavenon  two  tables  of 
stone  ; "  therefore,  he  calls  it  a  stony  lavN  —  •'  These  that  w  ere 
under  the  law,  were  ki'pt  in  bondage, —  shut  up  unto  the  laith 
which  should  alterwards  be  r(  vcale(i,&c.  But  that  law  was 
taken  away  under  the  gospel ;  therefore,  the  heart  oi  st(  ne  w  as 
taken  away,  and  we  delivered  from  the  spirit  ot  bondage  to 
fear  ;  a  heart  of  flesh,  and  a  new  spirit  given  us." 

Thus  you  may  see  Mr.  H's  ideas.  And  if  yt  u  can  believe, 
that  because  the  'aw  was  engraven  on  two  tables  o;  sttnc,it 
was  theretbre  a  stony  lav. , — and  vv  hen  the  Mosaic  dispensa- 
tion was  taken  away,  that  thtreioie  the  htart  of  stone  was 
taken  away,  and  a  heart  of  flesh  given  ;  and  also,  a  new  heart 
and  a  new  spirit  put  within  us,  and  we  ele;  nsed  Iron  all  our 
idols  and  tilthiness,  and  that  by  aheaven'y  flood  o  wattr  bap- 
tism, then  you  can  believe  Logica  Henkelensis,  and  en  brace 
his  doctrine ! " 

Answer.  My  opponent  in  this  condensed  form,  has  most 
shamefully  misrepresented  n:y  ideas. 

By  transcribing  the  fo'low  ing  from  my  treatise,  the  reader 
will  be  enabled  to  perceive  Mr.  M's  misrepresentation  of  my 
ideas,  on  this  subject: —  Heavenly  flood  p   ^6  &  26,  1  sa)  : 

The  prophet  ht  re  certainly  refers  to  the  days  ol  the  new  testa- 
ment dispensation,  for  he  speaks  of  a  nev^  spiit,  v  hieh  has  a 
reference  to  the  administraticn  oi  the  Hoi}  Spirit  under  the 
gospel;  further,  he  speaks  of  taking  away  the  ^tcny  heart. 
Now  the  lav\  was  engraven  on  tw  o  tables  of  sttre  &  ih(  se  that 
were  under  the  law  were  kept  in  bondage,  as  the  Apostle 
saith  ;  *  but  be'bre  faith  came,  we  weie  Kept  ui  der  the  law, 
shut  up  unto  the  faith  v\hich  shou'd  atteiwi-rtls  be  revealed. 
Wherefore  the  law  was  our  schooimaster.  to  biing  us  unto 
Christ,  that  we  might  be  justified  by  faith  ;  but  atter  that  *aith 
is  come,  we  are  no  longer  under  a  shoo'mastei  '  Gal.  8,  28-25. 
See  a' so  eh  4  N<»w  it  is  'ikely  the  prophet  alludes  to  such 
hearts  as  were  under  the  stony  !aw .  or  that  had  the  spirit  of 
bondage  to  fear,  from  which  they  should  be  liberated  under 
the  gospel,  by  the  sprinkling  of  clean  w  ater  and  the  new  spirit. 
Thus  the  prophet  also  mentions  v  a*er  and  the  spirit,  hy  w  hich 
the  people  shall  be  cleansed  from  their  filthiness  <  nd  idols,  and 
receive  a  new  heart,  which  is  nothing  short  o  be  rf  borr  ant  w 
of  water  and  of  the  spirit.  The  clean  water  menioned  by  the 
prophet  cannot  mean  spirit  only,  but  an  elementary  water; 
for  if  he  meant  by  the  term  'clean  water'  cnly  spirit,  he 
would  not  afterwards  speak  of  a  new  spirit ;  hence  it  is  evident 


66 

he  means  two  distinct  things  by  two  distinct  expressions,  viz: 
clean  waiei*,  and  a  new  spiiit. 

Now  tliere  is  a  manife^t  difference,  belvvecn  saying,  that  the 
law  was  taken  away  under  the  gospel ;  that  theietore,  ihe  htarfc 
of  stone  was  taken  away:  and  that  such  hearts,  as  wtre  under 
the  stony  law,  and  had  the  spirit  of  bondage  to  tear,  should 
be  iibarated  from  the  same,  under  the  gospel.  To  ha\ ,  that 
the  law  was  taken  away  under  the  sjospel  \^ou■d  imply,  that 
there  vvas  no  law  in  existence,  since  Christ's  incarnation.  This 
\v  luld  be  a  false  doctrine,  which  I  utteily  disclaim.  Although, 
Christ  has  suffered  the  penalty  ol  the  luw  ;  yet  is  it  in  existence; 
and  though  no  man  may  ever  be  justified  thereby  ;  yet,  it  is 
necessary  to  reveal  sin,  and  is  otherwise  useful.  But  lo  be 
liberated  from  the  fear  of  bondage,  and  Irom  the  law,  by  tiie 
sprinkling  of  the  clean  water,  and  The  new  spirit,  implies  a  sou', 
who  has  tied  to  Christ  for  refuge,  on  whom  the  law  has  lost 
all  its  power  of  condemnation.  It  is  very  unfair  for  my  oppo- 
nent, to  attempt  to  make  his  readers  believe,  that  I  deny  the 
ex  stenc  ',an  I  use  of  the  law,  under  the  gospel,  when  it  is  not 
true.  One  thinsj  is,  to  be  freed  from  the  law,  by  faith  and  thus 
not  be  in  bondage  ;  and  another  ihihg  is,  the  entire  aboliiion 
of  the  La^v.  I  asserted  the  former,  and  by  no  means  the  latter. 
With  respect  to  his  stricture,  on  the  phrase  "  stony  law,''  I 
will  ju'^t  observe,  that  I  '"an  discover  no  more  impropriety  in 
caUin  J  it  a  stony  law,  because  it  was  inscribed  upon  two  tables 
of  stone,  than  to  call  it  a  written  law  ;  because  its  contents  have 
b'*en  coramitt  d  t »  paper  But  as  this  is  a  matter  of  little  im- 
portance, I  will  take  n  >  furthe   pains, to  justiiy  its  propriety. 

I  shall  now  examine  the  analogy  my  oppon'  nt  speaks  of 
bet.veen  a  natural  and  the  spiritual  birth'.  He  says,  p  6&7, 
"  If  we  view  the  analogy  between  a  natural  and  spiritual  birth, 
there  is — 1st  a  conception  ;  2d.  a  travai'  ;  3d.  a  deliverance. 
We  are  then  born  into  this  world,  aufl  begin  to  brealh  ihe  vital 
air,  which  gives  motion  and  expansion  to  the  heart  and  lungs  ; 
and  thus  receives  from  the  sun-ounding  atmosphere,  tho-e  vital 
particles  of  air  which  are  onstantly  needed  to  support  the  fii  me 
of  animil  'i^e.  Our  external  senses  are  also  open  to  behold 
the  licrht  of  this  world  ;  and  we  begin  to  discover,  and  to  linve 
a  knowledge  of  the  various  objects  which  surround  us  on  every 
side.  Likewise,  by  receiving  nourishing  food,  first  the  mi'lc 
o^  the  mother,  then  stronger  as  our  eonstitution  will  bear  it.  we 
grow,  and  from  babes,  we  come  to  be  young  men  and  fathers^ 
and  are  enabled  to  perform  the  duties  of  h'e." 

"  Thus  it  is  in  a  spiritual  birth.  1.  The  understanding  is  iU 
Ituuioated  by  the  word  and  spirit  of  God,  and  the  soul  brought 


a? 

to  sec  il5  lost  arif^  undone  situation.  This  produces  crnviction 
in  the  uiinil.  The  soui  jielciuig  to  tliis  cciiviction,  it  n  a^  be 
saiil,  that  the  seed  oi  (iivini.-  grace  is  ctiiceived  in  tiie  ht  ait.  2. 
We  I  he  !  have  to  go  ihroiigh  the  painiul  travail  or  npeniance 
towards  God,  before  we  obtain  deliverance.  This  lejcntance 
humbles  us  as  in  the  dust ;  tills  u>  with  deep  pt  nitcntial  sonow, 
and  can<!'"s  us  to  abhor  ouiso'vcs  as  in  dust  iind  asht-s  belore 
God.  Thus  we  come,  labou.  ing  undei  the  weight  oi  sin  and 
guilt,  acknowledging  belore  God.  our  manitold  ciines  and 
transgres>ions,  au'i  earnestly  praying  lb.  niercy.  The  Loid 
h''arkens  and  hears  the  humble  mourners'  prayer,  and  biesses 
them  with  a  pardi)ning  love.  Thus  3fl.  'l  hey  are  deliveied, 
and  born  of  the  spirit.  Yes,  the  spirit  ot  G'kI  applies  the  merit 
of  Cirist's  death  to  the  w'ounded  sou!. — Guilt  and  condenina- 
tion  are  taken  away  from  the  conscience,  and  the  soul  l>rc.ught 
into  the  light  and  hberty  o;  God's  children.  The}  new  breathe 
the  vital  air  Oi  divine  love,  v^  hich  expands  their  sou!s  with 
Love  to  God,  and  good  vvil'  to  men  ;  and  supp  ics  then:  \Ailh 
grace,  to  feed  the  flame  of  that  divine  and  spiritual  life  which 
is  kindled  in  their  hearts. " 

Answer.  I  wish  n)y  opponent  had  suppressed  those  gross 
and  carnal  ideas.  It  is  unbecoming  the  dignity  of  this  impor- 
tant subject,  to  compare  it  with  a  carnal  birth.  Properly  to 
delineate  this  supposed  analogy,  the  previous  study  of  mid- 
wifery would  bi"  ne-essar}  .  Whether  Mr.  M.  understands 
it,  I  Jo  not  know  ;  but  as  it  respects  myself,  I  make  no  pre- 
tensions to  it.  Yet,  so  much  any  one  nmy  knew,  that  in  a 
na'ural  birth,  the  mother  conceives,  labours,  and  is  delivered. 
Bat  the  sinner,  who  is  spiritually  born,  certain'y  cannot  him- 
self be  the  mother.  Hi;  must  be  the  spiritual  child,  lor  the 
scrio'Ures  call  the  regenerated,  God's  children  But  accorditig 
to  M.-  M's  statement,  the  sinner,  who  is  to  be  the  spiritual 
child,  must  conceive  himsel'",  and  deliver  himself^  by  the  pain- 
fu'  travail  of  repentance.  Most  unfortunate,  and  ridiculous 
analogy!  it  subverts  the  nature  of  things!  for  where  in  all 
creation,  can  it  ht' fouii! I,  that  the  child  is  substituted  for  the 
mother  '.  O"  does  he  mean,  that  the  sinner  is  to  be  both,  the 
child,  and  the  mother?  It  appears  so;  for  he  says,  that  the 
seed  of  divine  grace  is  conceived  in  the  heart,  when  the  mind 
is  illuminated,  by  the  word,  and  spirit  of  God  ;  and  then  v  e 
have  to  go  throusjh  the  painful  travail  of  repentance,  before  we 
obtain  deliverance.  ^Vho  does  n"t  nt  the  first  v'ew  perceive, 
how  vulgar  it  is,  to  invent  su-^h  an  analogy  ?  Did  not  our  bles- 
se  1  Saviour  carc'u'lv  guard  against  such  carnal  idea«,  when 
speaking  on  this  subject ?    When  ^ficodemus  asked  him, "how 


ican  a  man  be  born  when  he  ^s  old  ?  "  he  replied,  "that  which  is 
born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh  ;  and  that  wiiich  is  born  of  the  spirit, 
is  spirit;"  by  vviiicii  ne  absl.-acts  all  carnal  ideas,  and  vulgar 
comparisons.  Wh -re,  in  the  scriptures,  is  repentance  called  a 
painiul  travail?  it  seem-:,that  my  opponent  considers  repen- 
tance sjm-^  kind  olpanishment,  similar  to  that  of  a  Papish  pur- 
gatory. Many  of  his  b.ethren,  together  with  sundry  others 
en-ertainthe  same  views ;  hence,  their  Sf^rmons  consist  of  many 
a\v;u!,  an  I  fearful  expi'essions,  to  terrify  the  imagination,  in 
order  to  produce  this  paintn)  travad,  which  not  untVequently 
affect  the  nervous  syste.i),the  resultof  which  in  many  instances, 
has  bi'en  corporeal  convulsions.  There  are  many  who  think, 
that  before  a  man  can  be  regenerated  he  must  undergo  some 
punishment,  which  they  cad  co  iviction,  causing  the  mt»st  des- 
perate throes ;  sach  they  suppose  to  be  the  travail  of  repentance. 
Such  teachers,  vvhen  they  speak  of  repentance,  they  do  not 
mean,  what  he  scriptures  imply  with  respect  to  this  subject, 
bat  sam^  kind  of  punishment,  like  as  if  it  should  be  an  atone- 
ment for  sin.  This  doctrine,  and  that  of  the  Roman  purgatory 
are  nearly  related.  All  the  ditference  is,  that  the  one  is  a 
present,  and  th  •  other  a  future  purga'ory. 

The  verb  ^u^favofw,  which  is  translated  /repenf, is  compoun- 
ded of  /«,£*».  after,  and  I'otw,  I  consider ;  and  thus  properly 
signifies,    I   consider   after  the  deed;    hence  its  substantive 
ftitavoia,  which  is  translated  repentance,  pioperly  signifies  a 
change  of  mind.     It  may  be  seen  '-l.tt'i.  8.2.     Arts  17,  30, 
Lnke  15,  7.  ch.  16,  80  '  Matth.  11,  20.     Acts  2,  88.     Mark 
6,  12.     A  change  of  mind,  does  noi  ueeessarily  involve  the 
idea  of  a  painful  travail*     St.  P  ml  says  'Mbr  by  the  law  is  the 
knowledge  of  sin."  Rom.  8,  20  "1  had  not  known  sin.  but  by 
the  law:  for  I  had  not  known  lust,  except  the  law  had  said, 
Thou  shalt  not  covet;"  ch.  7,  7— and  v.  18—"  But  sin,  that  it 
might  appear  sin,  working  death  in  me  by  that  which  is  good; 
that  sin  by  the  commandment  might  become  exceeding  sinful. 
^^  Wherefore  the  law  wa<^  our  schooImaste^•  to  bringns  to  Christ, 
that  we  m  ghtbe  justified  by  fiiith."  Ga!.  8,  14.     These  texts 
shew,  that  G  )d's   holy  law  is  the  means,  by  which  the  spirit 
convinces  the  sinner  of  his  guilt,  the  justice  of  his  condemna- 
tion, which  urges  him  to  come  to  Ghrist»     For  without  the  law, 
we  should  never  realize  the  enormity  of  our  guilt;  and  hence, 
never  p'M'ceive  the  indispensable  necessity  of  a  Saviour.     So 
jndeed,  the  law  causes  us  to  consider  after  the  guilty  (]cc(^ ;  but 
only  to  drive  us  to  utter  desperation,  unless  the  gospi  I  of  Christ, 
he  also  heard,  and  believed,  which  swallows  up  all  the  terrors, 
|g^feich  the  law  yvpuld  otherwise  display  in  the  mind  of  the  sinner. 


Hence,  the  mere  operations  of  the  law  are  not  sufficient  to  re^ 
plete  repentance;  tor  the  gospel  must  be  adfleil,to  cause  faith, 
by  which  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  apprehended.  The 
scriptures  declare,  that  by  repentance  we  get  the  remission  for 
sin;  and  yet,  also  declare,  that  without  faith  we  cannot  be  sa. 
ved,*  which  proves,  tlidt  faith  constitutes  a  part  of  repentance. 
A  though,  the  lasv  be  calculated  to  reveal  sin,  and  terrify  ever 
so  mach;  and  thou'^h.  all  this  be  ev  r  so  n.icessai-y ;  yet  it  can 
not  an")unttoa  painful  travail;  because  if  it  be  repentance,  by 
whiiih  is  the  reaiission  fo-  sin,  filth  is  necessarily  included, 
which  apprehends  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  whose  atonement 
is  far  superior  to  all  guilt:  this  changes  theteirors  ol  the  law, 
and  sooths  into  mental  tranquility.  This  is  illustrated  by  the 
following  passage: 

"  T  lere'bre,  Ut  a'l  th.^  house  of  Israel  know  assuredly,  that 
God  hath  m  I  le  that  sam  •  Jesus,  whom  ye  have  crucified,  both 
Lord  and  Christ.  Now,  when  they  heard  this,  they  were 
prickcvl  in  their  heart,  and  said  unto  Peter,  and  to  the  rest  of 
the  apostles,  Men  and  brethren  what  shall  we  do?  Then 
Peter  said  unto  them,  Repent,  and  be  baptised  every  one  of 
yoj  in  the  name  of  Je^us  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and 
ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  H  >iy  Ghost."  Acts  2,  86-38. 
When  Peter  told  the  Jew;,  that  Jesus,  whom  they  had  cruci- 
fied, arose  from  the  deal;  v.  32,  and  was  made  both  Lord 
and  Christ,  they  were  pricked  in  their  heart,  which  indicates 
their  consternation.  They  were  the  Saviour's  murderers,  and 
upon  hearing,  that  he  a'-ose.  and  was  suprenudy  euahed,  they 
anticipated  his  vengeance.  They  being  pricked  in  their  heait, 
were  already  in  a  state  of  travail,  before  they  asked  Peter, 
what  they  should  do;  and  before,  he  returned  the  comfortable 
answer:  to  repent,  and  be  baptised,  in  the  very  name  of  him, 
whom  they  crucified,  for  the  remission  of  their  sins.  Now, 
suppose  rpppntance  to  be  a  painful  travail,  what  necessity  was 
there  for  Peter  tote'l  those  Jews,  to  repent,  i.  e.  according  to 
my  opponent's  theory,  to  be  in  a  painful  state  of  travail,  when 


*  Note.  In  the  following  passages,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  faith,  and 
repentance,  are  hoth  mentioned.  —  "  Repent  ye  and  believe  the  go.spel." 
Mark  1  15.  "Testifying  both  to  the  Jews,  ant  also  to  the  Gteeks,  repen- 
tance toward  God.  and  faith  towaid  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Acts  20,  21. 
The  word  reoen'ance,  he-e  i^s  only  taken  for  the  one  part,  i.  e.  sorrow  for 
sin.  Neverth'ess,  faith  is  Joined  to  this  sorrow  for  sin;  hence  there  is  no 
remission  fo- sin  no  matter  how  mu' h  contrition  a  sinner  may  have;  un- 
le-s  he  have  faith.  So  that  when  repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins,  ie 
mrniioned  in  the  scriptures,  we  understand  taith  incladcd^  for  without  faith, 
no  mai>  can  have  the  pavdoo  for  siij. 


70 

fiiey  were  already  in  this  state  ?  It  is  evident,  that  this  ex- 
hortation,  A^hicli  t;ie  ap3stle  gave  them,  to  repent  was  to  eman- 
cipate them  from  this  state  of  travail.  It  seems,  that  if  my 
opponent,  hid  had  the  maaai^ement  on  <hi  day  of  penteeost, 
he  '.voald  have  rold  thase  p  )or,  ter  "itied  Jews,  to  enter  afresh 
into  an>ther  travail,  and  vehemently  exhorted  tJiem,  to  feel 
the  torm'^nts  of  O'lrojatJi-y  ;  before  he  would  have  given  any 
hope  of  deliverance  ;  for  he  makes  a  painful  travail,  of  repen- 
tance. Wht^reas  St.  Peter  comforted  them,  by  exhorting 
th^m  to  repent  and  to  be  baptised.  It  is  said,  ''they  that 
gla  lly  received  the  ward  were  baptised  ;  an  I  the  same  day 
th?re  wer  *  adie  1  wito  ^he  n  a'l  >  it  three  thousand  souls.  "  v  41. 
Tiis  also  shews,  that  three  thm^and  souls  being  added  to  the 
Christian  church  the  same  day,  that  they  could  not  have  had 
suJii  uent  time,  to  lie  twenty  four  hours,  half  convulsed  under 
sore  conviction,  and  labouring  in  travail,  before  they  obtain- 
ed deliverance. 

I  shall  yet,  a  H  'h^  jailor's  cmversion,  Tiie  jailor  antici- 
pated the  escape  of  his  prisoners,  when  by  the  earthquake, 
the  foundations  of  the  prison  were  shaken,  and  saw  its  doors 
open,  and  their  bands  loosed  ;  whereupon  he  drew  out  his 
sword,  md  wouki  h  ive  kille  I  himse'f.  But  being  prevented 
by  St.  Paul,  h^  catne  tremblinij,  and  fell  down  before  him, 
and  S  as,  anJ  b!'>!ight  them  out  ;  and  said,  Sirs,  what  must 
I  lo  to  be  saved  ?  T  las  it  is  eviflent,  that  before  the  jailor 
asked  this  important  question,  he  was  in  a  state  of  consterna- 
tion, and  ver  i^e  1  on  lestru'fim  ;  for  he  hid  almost  commit- 
ted su'cide.  Bit  whit  answer  di  I  Paul  and  Silas  return? 
No  doubt,  hid  mv  oppon  nt  been  there,  he  would  hnve  said, 
"  you  must  first  pass  through  the  ordeal  of  a  painful  travail' ; 
and  to  effect  this,  he  would  ha/e  represented  to  his  mind, 
the  flaming  sulphureous  seas  of  Tophet  ;  and  had  him  con- 
vulsed f)r  a  while  ;  be  ore  he  would  have  administered  con- 
solation. Sot  this  was  not  thf  answer,  the  apostles  gave. 
They  said  "Bdieve  on  the  L^-d  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt 
be  saved,  and  thy  house.''  H<*  Was  also  immediately  bap- 
tised. Thus  we  learn,  that  the  jailor  had  no  travail  in  his  re- 
Eentance.  But  when  he  was  vet  on  his  way  to  destruction, 
e  was  in  a  state  of  travail  Bit  as  soon  as  he  beared  the 
gosiel,  and  believed  it,  he  was  in  a  state  of  salvation,  and  re- 
joicing. He  also  shewed  the  fmits  of  his  repentance,  by  his 
km dness  to  the  apostles  ;  for  he  washed  their  sti-ipes.  and  set 
meat  before  them  Al!  this,  transpired  in  a  few  hours  ;  hence, 
no  time  to  pass  through  this  supposed  purgatory  of  travail  I 
See  Act  16,  25  -  S4, 


71 

It  is  admitted,  that  when  nothirg  but  the  terrors  of  the  ]a\V 
are  preachec!  to  the  pcope,  that  many  enter  into  such  a  pain- 
ful travail,  and  many  have  utterly  (iesp;iired  ;  w  hilsi  others 
became  hypocrites,  by  thinking  the  pains  they  experiuiced, 
were  a  sutticini  atonenit  nt  tor  their  crin  es  But  Christ's 
ministers  are  not  commanded,  to  ofliciate  in  this  manner.  If 
they  mention  the  law,  they  must  also  place  bj  its  side,  the  su- 
perior glory,  and  excellence  ot  the  gospel  God  convicts  us 
by  thi*  lavv,  not  with  a  view  to  punish  us  for  our  sins  ;  nor 
does  he  kill  us,  that  we  should  tinai  y  die  ;  but  that  we  should 
see  the  nc'^essity  ol  a  Saviour,  and  live  lor  ever,  ll  a  n  an 
shou  d  hear  the  sentence  oi  Heath  pr<  noi  need  agirst  bmi.  it 
indeed,  woud  be  tenible  ;  but  when  at  the  san  e  tin  v,  the 
pardon  s  presented,  the  terror  ceiiSes  ;  for  the  idea  of  a  par- 
don destroys  the  terror  ol  the  sentence  ;  hence  no  travail 
could  take  place.  If  the  sentence  of  denth  only,  should  be 
pronounced,  without  a  pardon  to  accompany  it.  then  indeed  a 
travail,  but  to  no  sa  utary  purpose,  would  be  the  result  Bot- 
wh)  has  authorised  any  one  to  say,  that  the  law  must  sepa- 
rate y  be  preached,  to  produce  this  travail  of  repentance  ? 
Un  ess  the  law  be  prea^h^d  separa'ely,  a  travail  can  never 
be  the  result  ;  for.wherever  the  gospel  is  added,  the  sinner 
is  com  orted,  and  the  terrors  vanish.  Hence,  I  uiust  con- 
clude, that  my  opponent  is  a  preacher  of  the  law,  and  knows 
more  of  Moses  than  of  Christ. 

The  Papists  taught  a  purgatory  after  death,  in  which  souls 
must  get  prepared  for  heaven  :  but  some  protestants  in  prop- 
erly so  called,  tea^^h  something  which  is  similar,  i.  e.  a  travail^ 
before  they  can  be  sav -d,  and  a  false  representation  of  repen- 
tance is  made  their  pander.  Multitudes  of  people,  when  they 
resort  to  the  meeting  house,  where  such  preachers  officiate,  in- 
stead of  hearing  the  joyful  news,  that  God  is  reconciled  to  the 
wor'd  through  the  death  of  his  Son  ;  and  that  all,  who  be- 
lieve, realize  this  free  salvation,  they  enter  into  a  hou:?e  of 
gloomy  dea'h,  and  where  no  hope  beams  upon  the  souls  of 
sinners.  On  the  pulpit  stands  a  beinsf,  who  is  called  a  minis- 
ter of  the  gospel.  arrayeH  in  some  peeuliar  coat,  to  denote  his 
distinction  from  th?  world  ;  his  natural  tone  is  lost,  and  sv^ al- 
lowed up  in  a  voice  moaning,  to  shew  his  super-anffelic  humil- 
ity :  his  cheeks  are  curved  ;  his  lips  protruded  ;  his  eye-balls 
unnaturally  rolling,  like  balls  of  6re  ;  whilst  occasionally 
he  sheds  tears,  like  a  crocodile,  to  signify  his  external  holi- 
ness :  from  his  lips  issues  a  torrent  of  bombastic  expressions, 
describing  somewhat  like  Milton,  the  torments  of  h«Il.  with 


,72 

adamantine  *  chains,  and  penal  fires,  and  thus  crowding  the 
imagination  with  those  t'earul  metaphors  ;  so  that  w eak  le- 
malesj  and  unliable  men  get  alaimed  ;  ihey  tall  into  convic- 
tion, the  penitential  ti  avail  commences  ;  they  wrestle  in  some 
corporeal  matmt^r  ;  and  having  thus  by  their  hard  labour,  ren- 
dered God  a  recon  pt  nee  for  their  s-ins,  they  imagine,  they 
have  obtained  deliverance  ;  and  they  rise,  and  give  him  glojy, 
and  thence  date  their  convei'siun. 

The  Papists  by  their  unscriptural  representations  of  purga- 
tory, acquired  a  great  ascendency  over  the  peop'e,  and  an  ac- 
cess to  their  purses  ;  for  whenever  people  are  kept  in  legal 
bondage,  a  tyrannical  priesthood  will  domineer.  A'thcugh 
the  dark  ages  ol  tyrannical  popery  are  past  ;  yet,  now  under 
the  garb  of  the  protestant  religion,  repentance  is  made  a  pain- 
ful travail ;  so  that  the  people  may  be  kept  in  legal  bondage. 


SECTION  IX. 

This  section  contains  an  investigation  of  mv  opponent's  gloss  on  1  Pet.  3^ 
20,  21. 

This  text  being  quoted  in  my  treatise,  my  opponent  als» 
quoted,  p.  35.  a  paif  of  my  con.ment  on  the  same  :  viz 

"  Mr.  H.  p.  35.  says  :  "The  flood  in  which  the  antedilu- 
vians perished,  was  a  figure  of  baptism.  'Eight  souls  were 
saved  in  the  ark  by  water.  The  like  figure  whertunto  even 
baptism  doth  also  now  save  us.'  The  flood  ccnsis'ed  of  water  ; 
so  does  baptism.  The  ^^ater  upheld  the  ark,  so  that  eight 
souls  could  swim  on  it,  and  be  saved  ;  the  Holy  Ghost  moves 
on  water  in  baptism,  and  Christ  is  put  on  theieby  &c." 

On  this  Mr.  M.  observes,  p.  S6  :  "  li  the  flood  is  a  figure 
o^  baptism,  then  baptism  must  also  be  a  figure  of  the  flood  ; 
because  the  apostle  says,  baptism  is  a  like  figure.  So  then, 
here  would  be  one  figure  representing  another  figure  ;  which 
■would  not  be  correct.  " 

Answer.     That  baptism  is  called  the  like  figure,  does  not 


*  By  the  above  remark,  I  do  not  wish  to  convey  the  idea,  that  there  are 
no  <"uture  punishments  ;  nor.  that  it  is  improper  to  mention  the  description 
of  future  torments,  a9.  described  in  the  sctiptmes  :  but  only  to  check  all 
wild,  exlragant,  expressions,  and  to  ridicule  the  absurd  doctrine,  that  the 
preaching  of  the  law,  without  the  gospel  by  its  side,  will  convert  sinners. 


73 

prove  it  to  be  a  figure  of  the  flood.  Neither  does  the  apostle 
say,  that  baptism  is  a  figure  of  the  flood,  but  the  Hke  figure* 
What  is  here  in  EngUsh  called  the  like  figure,  is  in  the  ori- 
ginal, avtvtvTtov,  which  is  an  antitype,  or  a  type  corresponding. 
But  is  an  antitype,  a  type  of  a  former  type  ?  By  no  means. 
An  antitype  is  not  emblematical,  but  is  the  corresponding  sub- 
stance of  a  former  type,  or  figure. 

My  opponent  proceeds  ;  "  Agreeably  to  Mr.  H's  doctrine, 
the  flood  is  but  a  very  poor  figure  indeed  of  his  holy  baptism  ; 
for  that  was  a  destroying  flood,  or  flood  of  divine  wrath,  as 
well  as  a  flood  of  water,  by  which  all  the  wicked  were  de- 
stroyed I  But  his  holy  baptism  is  a  saving  flood,  or  flood  of 
divine  grace,  by  which  all  ttie  ungodly,  who  receive  it,  are  sa- 
ved from  sin  and  divine  wrath  !  " 

Answ^er.  Can  a  flood  of  destruction,  not  also  be  a  flood  of 
safety  ?  Although,  the  antediluvians  perished  in  the  w-ater  ; 
nevertheless,  by  it  the  eight  souls  were  saved.  If  baptism  be 
a  flood  of  salvation,  it  must  also  be  a  flood  of  destruction. 
The  apostle  says  '^  Knowing  this,  that  our  old  man  is  crucifi- 
ed with  him,  that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed,  that 
henceforth  we  should  not  serve  sin."  Rom.  6,6.  Again — 
"If  ye  live  after  the  flesh,  ye  shall  die  :  but  if  ye  through  the 
spirit  do  mortify  the  deeds  of  the  body  ye  shall  live.  "  ch.  8.  13. 
These  texts  shew,  that  if  the  body  of  sin  be  not  destroyed  we 
must  die  ;  but  otherwise  we  shall  live.  Through  the  spirit 
the  body  of  sin  must  be  destroyed,  which  as  I  have  already 
proved,  is  administered  by  baptism,  which  destruction  will 
prove  our  ultimate  felicity.  Although,  the  flood  was  destruc- 
tive ;  notwithstanding  on  that  account,  it  is  a  proper  figure  of 
baptism  ;  for  if  baptism  be  a  means  of  salvation,  it  must  also 
be  that  of  destruction,  as  the  old  man  in  us  must  perish,  before 
the  nev/  can  finally  be  triumphant. 

I  deny  this  to  be  the  truth,  what  my  opponent  says,  that 
my  holy  baptism  saves  all  the  ungodly,  who  receive  it,  from 
sin  and  divine  wrath.  There  is  no  such  an  idea  exhibited 
throughout  my  treatise  ;  but  the  contrary  is  asserted.  See  p. 
83,  34,  35.  Neither,  have  I  ever  preached  any  such  doctrine, 
Mr.  M.  you  ought  not  to  accuse  me  falsely  ! 

"But"  continues  Mr.  M.  "As  the  Apostle  says  that  bap- 
tism is  a  like  figure,  it  proves  1st,  that  baptism  is  a  figure  ; 
therefore,  a  sign,  or  emblem.  " 

I  answer  :  Every  figure  (much  less  an  antitype)  is  not  an 
emblem  :  that  is  a  mere  allusive  picture,  which  is  the  mean- 
ing of  an  emblem.  Eight  souls  were  saved  in  the  ark  by  the 
flood,  which  truly  was  a  figure  ;  but  was  it  therefore,  a  mere 

K 


74 

emblematical  flood  ? — and  were  they  only  emblematically 
saved  ?  It  destroyed  the  wicked.  But  was  it  only  an  em- 
blem of  destruction  ?  No — the  flood  was  real — 'he  eighi  souls 
were  really  saved — the  wicked  dest;'oyed  :  and  yet,  it  served 
as  II  prefigui-ation  of  baptism.  Now.  it  the  flood  and  its  ef- 
fects were  nal,  which  was  a  figure,  how  much  more  must 
baptism  its  antitype,  or  the  like  figure,  be  real  with  respect 
to  its  properties  anri  eticcts  .' 

My  opponent  afl({s  ;  "  '3.  It  proves  that  there  was  another 
figure  to  \vl»ich  the  apostle  referred.  Now  the  question  is,  what 
was  the  other  figure  like  ?  My  answer  is,  it  was  the  ark. 
For  the  eight  souls  were  not  saved  by  water  ;  but  were  saved 
in  the  ark,  from  perishing  by  water:  hence  a  figure  of  Christ, 
and  the  salvation  that  we  receive  from  the  flood  of  divine  wrath 
by  being  in  him.  S  >  baptism  is  a  like  figure  ;  i.  e.  a  figure  of 
the  baptism  of  the  spirit,  by  which  we  are  saved  and  cleansed 
from  all  sin,  '  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ ; '  or  by  the 
power  of  that  spirit  which  raised  Chi'ist  from  the  dead.  " 

Answer.  Mr.  M.  positively  contradicts  the  aposth  Peter, 
whan  he  asserts,  that  the  eight  souls  were  not  saved  by  water. 
This  will  appear  plainer,  by  fully  quoting  the  words  of  the 
text:  —  "  Which  (the  spirits  in  prison  v.  19)  sometime  were 
disobedient,  when  once  the  long-suffering  of  God  waited  in 
the  days  of  Noah,  while  the  ark  was  a  preparing,  wherein 
few,  that  is,  eight  souls,  were  saved  by  water.  The  like  fi- 
gure w hereunto  haptisir  doth  also  now  save  us,  (not  the  put- 
ting away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  br.t  tht- ans\Aer  of  a  good 
conscien.'p  tow  arris  God.)  bv  theresurti'cticn  of  .lesus  Chrii-t.* 
1.  Pet.  3,  20,  21.  What  is  the  aniecedrnt  tothe  phrase  ''the 
like  figure  }'^  Ans.  \\'ater — an(!  the  text  positively  says, 
^'ei{jht  soids  were  -aved  by  water  *'  Now  \\hat  authority  has 
my  opponent,  for  asserting,  that  thi  y  were  not  saved  by  wa- 
ter ?     Whom  shall  v.  e  believe  ? — him  ? — or,  St.  Peter  ? 

VVhat  he  alleges  from  Heb.  11.  7 — is  no  proof,  that  the 
eight  souls  were  not  '^aved  by  water.  It  dimply  proves,  that 
Noah  prepared  the  ark  to  the  saving  of  his  house  ;  for  in  the 
ark,  as  St.  Peter  says,  eight  souls  were  saved  ;  not  by  the 
ark,  but  by  the  water.  If  there  had  not  been  a  flood  of  wa- 
ter, what  use  ^^  ould  there  have  been  for  the  ark  ?  Surely 
not  to  swim  on,  and  be  saved  by  dry  'and  !  Indeed  the  ark 
was  necessary  ;  but  without  the  water  it  wnuld  have  been 
prepared  in  vain.  As  there  would  have  been  no  deslruction 
without  the  water  ;  neither  could  the  eight  souls  have  been 
saved  ;  because  they  wotdd  have  been  in  no  danger. 

When  he  asserts,  that  '•'baptism  is  a  like  figure  i.  e.  a  £- 


75 

gure  of  the  baptism  of  the  spirit. "  he  violates  the  roles  of  sa- 
cred criticism.  The  apostle  does  not  say  so.  If  Mr.  M's 
gloss  were  correct,  the  text  uouUl  have  read  :  ^'vvherem  lew 
that  is  eiglit  souls  were  saved  by  water.  The  like  figure 
whereunto  baptism  doth  also  now  ?ave  us,  which  baptism  is 
the  like  figure  of  the  baptism  of  the  spirit,  by  which  we  are 
saved.  "  This  last  phrase,  is  no  part  ol  the  text,  but  the  most 
uncouth  adilition.  and  contradicts  the  apostle's  words.  For 
ha  only  speaks  of  one  like  figure,  that  is  baptism,  which  is 
properly  the  antitype  of  th>'  tlood  ;  but  my  opponent  makes 
this  antitype,  or  sabstance  of  a  former  figure,  that  is  the  flood, 
a  type  of  the  baptis.n  of  the  spirit-  It  appears,  because  he 
hates  the  idea,  that  baptism  shouUl  t)e  the  means  of  salvation, 
and  yet,  this  text  is  so  much  against  him  ;  in  order,  that  he 
may  be  right,  he  forces  into  it  another  antitA'pe,  and  thus  per- 
verts the  scriptures.  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  say  more 
on  this  subject,  as  any  person,  who  reads  his  gloss  may  see^ 
that  he  has  contradicted  the  apostle. 


SECTION  X. 

Aa  examination  of  my  opponent's  arguments,  which  l^e  produced  to  prove, 
thai  baptism  is  an  emblem,  fete.  In  this  section  al-o  it  is  -hewn,  that  it 
is  inconsis'ent  and  i  lolatrous,  to  teach  that  the  sacvamenis  oT  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper'are  emblems. 

Mr.  M.  attempts  to  prov;  by  some  assertions  in  my  trea- 
tise, and  by  Doct.  Luther's  words,  that  baptism  is  an  em- 
blem. He  says,  p.  40.  "Having  in  the  preceding  section  ex- 
plained the  design  and  use  of  baptism,  by  comparing  it  with 
that  of  circumcision,  we  wdl  in  this  show  more  luliy  that  wa- 
ter baptism  is  an  emblem,  or  visible  sign,  which  is  the  same. 
I  think  this  will  appear  from  Mr  H's  own  premise,  which 
he  has  stated  in  his  sixth  section,  where  he  calls  baptism  a 
seal.  Now  a  seal  is  an  impression,  or  extt  rnal  mark  design- 
ed to  confirm  the  truth  of  any  thing.  Hence  there  must  be  a 
difference  between  the  senl,  and  that  which  is  ratified  by 
it :  they  cannot  be  one  and  the  same  thing.  Mr.  H.  s&ys, 
baptism  is  a  seal  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  and  of  the  right- 
eousness of  faith,  as  circumcision  formerly  wa=^— therefore, 
an  external  thing — hence  an  emblem — of  course  not  a  heaven- 
ly fiood  of  regeneration.    He  says  ;  "To  be  circumcised  in 


76 

Christ,  and  to  be  baptised  into  Christ,  are  expressions  of  sim- 
ilar import.  "  If  so,  they  must  also  be  of  similar  signification. 
Now,  St.  Paul  calls  circumcision  in  the  flesh,  a  sign  of  cir- 
cumcision, as  well  as  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith. 
Rom.  iv,  11.  Therefore  water  baptism  is  a  sig7i  of  the  bap- 
tism of  the  spirit  as  well  as  a  seal.  Hence  an  emblem  ;  of 
course,  not  a  heavenly  flood,  &c,  Mr.  H.  himself  being 
judge. " 

Answer.  It  seems,  that  with  my  opponent  a  seal,  sign, 
and  emblem  are  synonymous.  Thus  when  he  speaks  of  a 
seal,  and  sign,  he  means  an  emblem.  And  because  circum- 
cision is  called  a  seal,  and  sign,  he  concludes  that  baptism 
must  be  an  emblem  ;  because  like  circumcision,  it  seals  the 
Abrahamic  covenant.  But  it  is  wrong  to  infer  from  this,  that 
baptism  is  an  emblem.  An  emblem  is  an  allusive  picture. 
Neither  a  seal,  nor  a  sign,  necessarily  signifies  an  emblem. 
There  are  different  terms  for  each  in  the  original  : —  o^paycj,  a 
sea! — STiixtvov,  a  sign — if^extifia,  an  emblem. 

A  seal,  in  civil  aflairs  of  life  is  joined  to  a  deed,  testament, 
or  another  instrument  of  writing,  in  which  certain  stipulations 
are  made  ;  and  by  which  also,  the  things  stipulatecl  may  be 
legally  conveyed.  Such  a  seal,  also  ratifies  the  same.  Such 
an  instrument  of  writing,  when  exhibited  before  a  court  of 
justice,  will  procure  to  the  legal  bearer,  the  possession  of  all 
therein  stipulated  ;  whereas  a  person  appearing  with  mere 
emblems  of  property,  would  render  himself  ridiculous.  Thus 
if  we  ever  apply  the  meaning  of  a  seal,  as  used  in  the  civil  af- 
fairs of  life  to  circumcision,  and  then  infer  the  same  with  re- 
spect to  baptism,  it  cannot  be  an  emblem.  But  that  meaning, 
which  the  scriptures  attach  to  the  word  seal,  and  no  other, 
ought  to  be  applied  ;  because  they  are  best  interpreted  by 
themselves.  The  following  will  shew  the  scriptural  import 
of  a  seal  :  — 

St.  Paul  say^,  '-  Now  he  which  establisheth  us  with  you  in 
Christ,  and  hath  anointed  us,  is  God  ;  who  hath  also  sealed 
us,  and  given  the  earnest  of  the  spirit  in  our  hearts. "  2  Cor. 
1,  2],  22.  This  shc\^  s,  that  to  seal  is  God's  own  work  ;  for 
"who  (God)  hath  also  sealed  us.  "  In  this  text  also,  to  "give 
the  earnest  of  the  spirit.  "  is  connected  with  "who  hath  also 
sealed  us."  And  in  Eph.  1,  13,  the  apostle  says,  "Ye  were 
sealed  with  that  holy  spirit  of  promise. "  These  passages  un- 
deniably indicate,  that  to  seal,  is  to  apply  the  holy  spirit. 
Now  if  baptism  be  a  seal,  the  application  thereof,  must  also 
be  an  application  of  the  holy  spirit,  which  difters  widely  from 
an  emblem.     Again  the  apostle  says  "The  foundation  of  God 


77 

siandeth  sure,  having  this  seal,  the  Lord  knoweth  them  that 
are  his  "  2  Tim»  2,  19.  When  the  question  is  put,  what 
seal  has  the  foundation  of  God  ? — the  answer  is,  that  the  Lord 
knows  them  that  are  his.  Hence,  the  word  seal  in  this  text, 
includes  to  be  known  of  God  as  his,  which  is  far  more  than 
an  emblem.  To  be  known  of  God  as  his,  is  nothing  short  of 
being  in  a  state  of  salvation.  Now,  if  the  scriptural  meaning 
of  a  seal  be  applied  to  baptism,  emblems  are  excluded.  My 
opponent  has  not  produced  one  scriptural  instance,  where  a 
seal  is  an  emblem* 

The  word  sign,  according  to  the  language  of  the  scriptures 
implies  more  than  an  emblem,  or  an  image  without  a  substance. 
A  few  instances  will  prove  this  : — "Behold,  this  child  (Jesus) 
is  set  for  the  fall  and  rising  again  of  many  in  Israel  ;  and  for 
a  sign,  which  shall  be  spoken  against."  Luke  2.  §4.  In 
this  text,  Jesus  is  called  a  sign,  ariixnov,  which  is  the  very 
same  word,  which  St.  Paul  uses,  when  he  speaks  of  circum- 
cision. ''  And  then  shall  appear  the  sign  (ari/A-siov^  of  the  son 
of  man  in  heaven  :  and  then  shall  all  the  tribes  of  the  earth 
mourn,  and  they  shall  see  the  Son  coming  in  the  clouds  of 
heaven,  with  power  and  great  glory. "  Matth.  24,  80.-— 
compared  with  Luke  21,  27.  This  text  also,  calls  Jesus  a 
sign.  Thus  he  is  a  sign,  which  is  spoken  against  ;  and  a  sign, 
when  shall  come  with  power  and  great  glory.  But  does  this 
prove,  That  Jesus  Christ  is  an  emblem,  or  an  allusive  pic- 
ture ?  According  to  Mr.  M's  theory,  Jesus  would  be  an 
emblem  ;  because  he  is  called  a  sign,  which  Mr.  M.  says, 
is  the  same  as  an  emblem  !  See  page  §5.  In  the  same  man- 
ner  he  proves,  that  baptism  is  an  emblem  ;  because  circum- 
cision is  called  a  sign  ;  equally  so,  I  can  also  prove,  that 
Christ  is  an  emblem  ;  for  he  is  called  a  sign.  But  who  would 
admit,  unless  he  be  a  blasphemer,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  an  em- 
blem, that  is  an  allusive  picture  without  a  substance  ?  Thi,» 
is  not  only  the  meaning  of  the  word  emblem  ;  but  my  oppo- 
nent also  applies  it  in  the  same  sense,  when  he  denies  the  di- 
vine  blessing  to  be  contained  m  the  means.  Though  Christ 
be  called  a  sign  ;  yet  is  he  a  real  substance.  Thus  it  is  evi- 
dent,  that  a  sign  is  not  a  mere  emblem  ;  but  either  includes, 
or  else  is  the  substance  itself.  Now,  if  circumcision  be  a 
sign,  and  baptism  being  in  lieu  thereof,  according  to  my  op- 
ponent's reasoning,  it  must  also  be  a  sign  ;  hence  I  conclude, 
that  baptism  includes  a  reality  ;  because  I  have  already  pro- 
ved, that  a  sign  is  also  a  substance.  This  is  the  more  evi- 
dent, because  baptism  does  not  consist  af  mere  water  ;  but  al- 
so, of  the  name  of  God,  which  is  not  a  shadow,  but  a  sub- 
stance, 


78 

That  D"»ct,  Lather  calls  baptism  a  sign  is  no  evidence, 
fchat  he  cjiisidei-ed  it  as  a  mere  emblem,  which  will  appear 
from  ihe  l"3ch  article  of  the  Aagastan  conl'ession,  which  was 
subscribed  by  himself,  in  which  the  meaning  of  a  sign,  is  suf- 
ficiently qiiiified.     The  article  says  : 

"Of  the  Sacraments,  we  teach  :  that  they  have  been  estab- 
lished, not  only  for  outward  signs,  whereby  Christians  may 
be  knovvn,  bat  that  they  shall  be  signs  and  testimonies  of  the  di- 
vine  will  towards  us,  in  order  thereby  to  awaken  and  strength- 
en the  faith  in  us  ;  wherefore  they  require  i'aith,  and  are  then 
used  in  a  right  manner  when  we  receive  them  in  faith,  and 
strengthen  it  thereby. " 

In  this  article  the  word  "sign,"  is  not  used  for  an  emblem, 
but  tor  a  testimony  of  the  divine  will  towards  us,  to  awaken 
and  strengthen  the  faith  in  us.  Whatsoever  is  a  testimony  of 
the  divine  will  towards  u^,  and  to  a^yaken  and  strengthen  our 
faith,  is  far  more  than  an  emblem. 

Again,  he  reasons  incorrectly,  when  he  concludes,  that  be- 
cause baptism  is  an  externa!  tiling;  therefore,  it  must  be  an 
emblem.  Is  every  external  thin^  an  emblem?  If  so,  then 
the  holy  scriptures  mist  be  an  emblem  ;  because  they  are  ex- 
ternal. Not  only  so,  but  every  man  in  the  world,  yea  Mr* 
M.  himself  mast  be  an  emblem  ;  because  he  is  an  external 
person.     Who  r.ould  believe  such  logick  ? 

It  can  easily  be  proven,  that  circu  ncision  was  of  more  im- 
portance than  a  mere  emblem,  and  that  it  was  a  means  to  ef- 
fect the  circu  ncisiin  of  the  heart.  Circumcision  was  called  a 
covenant.  "And  Gxlsaid  unto  Abraham,  Thou  shalt  keep 
my  covenant  therefore,  th')u  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their 
generations.  This  is  my  covenant,  which  ye  shall  keep,  be- 
tween me  and  you,  and  thy  seed  after  thee  ;  Every  man-child 
among  you  shall  be  circumcised."  Gen.  17,  9,  iO.  Accor- 
ding to  this,  circumcision  is  called  a  covenant.  Why  go  ? 
Not  that  the  cuttingoff  of  the  foreskin,  was  the  covenant  itself; 
but  it  must  have  had  a  connection  with  rt  ;  hence  it  was  a  to- 
ken, V.  It.  which  St.  Paul  calls  a  sign.  Circumcision  was 
connected  with  the  covenant,  or  a  means  to  effect  the  circum- 
cision of  the  heart.  If  in  case  circumcision  had  not  been  con- 
nected with  G)d's  covenant,  why  then  would  the  Lord  have 
said,  '  Aod  the  uncircumeised  man  child,  whose  flesh  of  his 
foreskin  is  not  circumcised,  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  his 
people  ;  he  hath  broken  my  covenant  ?  "  v.  14.  By  not  be- 
ing 'ircumcised  God's  covenant  was  broken  ;  but  how  could 
this  be,  if  circumcision  was  not  connected  with  it?  Ifcir- 
eumcision  had  been  a  mere  emblem,  and  distinct  from  God's 


covenant,  it  could  not  have  been  broken  by  not  being  circum- 
cised. The  Lord  might  have  charged  the  uncircumcised  w  ith 
disobedience,  for  neglecting  his  c(ftnmand,  but  not  for  bra- 
king his  covenant  ;  provided  circumcision  had  not  been  con- 
nected with  it.  By  not  being  circumcised,  the  covenant  was 
broken  ;  hence,  the  conclusion  is,  that  by  being  circumcised 
the  covenant  was  established  and  confirmed.  JVjr.  M.  agrees 
with  me,  page  o7,  that  this  covenant  contained  the  promises  of 
the  gospel.  Bui  what  were  those  promises  ?  They  included 
Christ,  and  his  blessed  spirit.  See  Gal.  g,  9-29.  Through 
Christ  we  are  justified,  and  by  his  blessed  spirit  we  get  sanc- 
tified. Now,  since  circumcision  was  connected  with  this  cov- 
enant, which  included  the  promise  of  the  ]Vlessiah,  and  the 
gifts  of  the  holy  spirit,  it  could  not  be  a  m.ere  emblem  ;  but 
such  a  sign,  as  included  the  stipulations  of  important  realities, 
which  are  calculated  to  etYect  the  circumcision  of  the  heart. 
I  shall  add  St.  Paul's  testimony,  Rom,  3,  1-4,  compared 
with  eh.  9,  4,  5: — "What  advantage  then  hath  the  Jew? 
or  what  profit  is  there  of  circumcision  ?  Much  every  way  : 
chiefly,  because  that  unto  them  were  committed  the  oracles 
of  God.  For  what  if  some  did  not  believe  ?  shall  their  unbe- 
lief make  the  faith  of  God  without  effect  ?  God  forbid."— 
And  of  those  circumcised  Jews  he  says  : — "To  whom  par- 
taineth  the  adoption,  and  the  glory,  and  the  covenants,  and 
the  giving  of  the  law,  and  tlie  service  of  God,  and  the  prom- 
ises ;  whose  are  the  fathers,  and  of  whom  as  concerning  the 
flesh  Christ  came,  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  tor  ever  A- 
men."  From  these  te.xts  we  learn,  that  circumcision  profited 
so  much,  that  unto  the  .Jews  the  oracles  ot  God  were  com- 
mitted, and  his  promises  made  ;  notwithstanding  their  unbe^ 
lief.  They  to  whom  the  divine  promises  where  made,  had  a 
right,  and  they  to  whom  the  oracles  i.  e.  the  words  of  God 
were  committed,  had  the  means  to  have  had  their  hearts  cir- 
cumcised. Thus  God  by  virtue  of  this  covenant,  had  granted 
them  all  those  privileges  ;  notwithstanding,  many  abused  them 
through  unbelief.  God  abides  faithful,  his  offers  are  earnest 
and  true  ;  although  frequently  despised  by  sinners. 

Although  baptism  now,  seals  the  Abrahamic  covenant  ;  yet 
this  does  not  prove,  that  baptism  must  therefore,  in  all  respects 
be  similar  to  circumcision,  in  its  meaning,  use,  and  design. 
This  is  elucidated  in  my  treatise,  which  I  shall  here  insert* 
Heavenly  flood,  p.  40  &  41  : — Baptism  though  in  lieu  of  cir- 
cumcision, yet  it  must  be  far  more  valuable,  otherwise  it  never 
would  have  corne  in  the  room  of  circumcision.  If  baptism 
oould  effect  no  mvre  than  circumcision;  what  then  could  have 


80 

been  God's  design  in  abolishing  circumcision  and  substituting 
baptism  ?  Is  not  Christ  as  a  high-priest  in  the  room  of  the 
Jewish  high-priests  under  the  law,  and  his  sacrifice  in  the 
room  of  the  sacrifices,  which  they  offered  ?  But  what  man 
of  common  sense  would  conclude,  thdt  therefore  Christ  can  be 
no  greater  than  they,  and  his  sacrifice  not  more  valuable  than 
their  sacrifices  ?  Is  not  the  whole  new  testament  dispensa- 
tion in  the  room  of  the  old  ?  Is  it  therefore  not  more  valuable  r 
It  certainly  is  more  valuable,  otherwise  the  old  would  have 
continued,  and  not  waxed  old,  "For  if  the  first  covenant 
had  been  faultless,  then  should  no  place  have  been  sought  for 
the  second.  "  Heb.  8,  7»  Again,  "  In  that  he  saith,  a  new 
covenant,  he  hath  made  the  first  old.  Now  that  which  decay- 
eth  and  waxeth  old  is  ready  to  vanish  away.  "  v.  13.  Now^ 
circumcision  was  a  rite  under  the  old  testament,  but  baptism 
under  the  new ;  hence  as  far  as  the  new  testament  excels  the 
old,  so  far  baptism  excels  circumcision  ;  for  every  institution 
must  be  agreeable  to  the  testament  of  which  it  is  an  institution. 
Circumcision  sealed  the  promise  of  a  Messiah  that  was  yet  to 
come ;  but  by  baptism  we  put  on  Christ,  that  is  already  come. 
Circumcision  was  principally  confined  to  the  Jewish  nation, 
and  only  to  the  male  sex;  but  the  apostle  saith,  ''For  as  many 
of  you  as  have  been  baptised  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ. 
There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free, 
there  is  neither  male  nor  female ;  for  ye  are  all  one  in  Christ 
Jesus."  Gal.  §,  27,  28.  Thus  Ijaptism  includes  all  ;  hence 
superior  to  circumcision.  Thus  far  the  argument  in  my  trea- 
tise. 

Circumcision  is  to  be  viewed,  1st,  as  a  sign,  and  a  seal  of  the 
Abrahamic  covenant,  before  the  era  of  the  Mosaic  dispensa- 
tion, or  the  covenant  made  at  mount  Sinai.  And  2d,  as  in- 
corporated with  the  Mosaic  code,  after  its  adoption.  As  a 
seal  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  it  was  purely  evangelical  ; 
for  this  covenant  had  Abraham's  seed,  who  is  Christ,  Gal.  3, 
16,  in  whom  all  the  families  of  the  earth  are  to  be  blessed, 
for  its  object.  In  this  respect  baptism  is  in  lieu  of  circumcis- 
ion. St.  Paul  says,  that  by  baptism  w^e  put  on  Christ,  and 
then  concludes  :  if  we  be  Christ's,  then  are  we  Abraham's 
seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise.  See  v.  27-29» 
If  by  baptism  we  put  on  Christ,  and  thus  become  Abraham's 
children,  it  is  evident,  that  we  are  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant. 
But  circumcision  in  so  far,  as  it  constituted  a  part  of  the  law, 
obligated  men  to  fulfil  the  same.  Gal.  5,  3.  Rom.  2,  25. 
In  this  respect,  baptism  is  by  no  means  in  lieu  of  circumcis- 
ion  ;  for  who  can  believe,  that  men  under  the  gospel  dispenea- 


•81 

iion  are  bound  to  fulfil  the  law  of  Moses  ?  The  aposUe,  ob- 
jected to  circumcision  under  the  gospel  dispensati*  n  ;  betause 
it  would  bind  men  unto  the  law,  and  then  comludes  :  that 
whosoever  is  justified  by  the  law  is  alien  from  giacc.  Gai.  5, 
1  -4,  Now  it"  baptism  laid  us  under  the  same  ob  igations,  it 
■would  follow,  that  all  those  that  were  baptised,  would  also 
have  fallen  trom  grace;  because  they  would  thereby  be  put 
under  the  law.  As  this  cannot  be  said  ot  baptism,  the  conclu- 
sion is,  that  in  this  respect  it  cannot  be  similar  to  circun  cision. 
IVIr  M.  therefore,  is  very  incorrect  in  his  manner  of  com- 
paring baptism,  in  this  respect  with  circumcision.  See 
p.  38,  39. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  shew  the  impropriety,  and  idola-- 
trous  consequences,  of  viewing  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, as  emblems.  My  opponent  says,  page  §8,  "Now, 
wherever  there  is  a  sign,  there  must  be  somethmg  signified  ; 
and  also  the  sign  and  the  thing  signified  cannot  be  identically 
one  and  the  same  thing  ;  there  must  be  some  distinction  be- 
tween them.  "  When  he  here  says  :  wherever  there  is  a 
sign,  there  must  be  something  signified  ;  he  does  not  rr-ean, 
that  this  something  is  connected  with  the  sign,  or  baptism  ; 
for  he  has  already  declared  :  the  grace  is  not  in  the  means* 
A'so,  when  he  speaks  of  a  sign,  he  has  an  emblem,  without  a 
substance  in  view  ;  hence  he  must  mean,  wherever  the  sign 
or  baptism  is  administered,  there  the  thing  signified  must  be  in 
the  heart  of  the  person  who  receives  baptism.  That  this  is 
his  meaning,  appears  from  what  he  'urther  says,  "Therefore, 
as  St.  Paul  calls  the  circumcision,  which  Abi-aham  received  in 
the  fle^h,  a  sign  of  circumcision,  it  undeniably  proves,  1st, 
that  outward  circumcision  was  not  the  tiue  essential  circum- 
cision, but  only  a  sign  of  it.  2d,  the  thing  signified,  is  the  in- 
ternal circumcision  of  the  heart,  performed  by  the  spirit  of 
Gocl,  and  is  the  true  essential  circumcision  "  And  page  §9, 
he  applies  this  to  baptism,  where  he  calls  it  "a  sign  or  em- 
blem of  that  inward  and  spiritual  grace,  by  which  the  soul  is 
regenerated,  &c.  "  All  this  plainly  indicates,  that  he  consid- 
ers baptism,  as  a  mere  representation  of  the  inward,  spiritual 
^ace  in  the  heart,  but  by  no  means  as  connected  with  bap- 
tism. 

If  this  doctrine  be  true,  then  every  baptised  person  must  ei- 
ther alreadv,  or  else,  will  in  i'uture  possess  this  inw  ard,  spiritu- 
al 2race  ;  because  he  has  the  sign  ;  and  wherever  there  is  a 
siarn,  there  must  be  somethmg  signified,  I'  not,  baptism 
would  be  1  'v'nef  emb'pm  to  all  such,  as  were  destitute  o^tbis 
inward,  spiritual  grace ;  for  they  would  have  the  emblem 


82 

without  the  thing  signified.  Wherever  there  is  a  sign,  and 
tha  thing  siguirieil  is  not  also  there,  it  is  ev.dent  that  such  an 
em olem  would  be  a  teacher  of  lies.  But  is  it  true,  that  all 
the  iiaptised  do,  or  ever  shall  possess  this  iIi\^ard,  spiritual 
grace  ?  By  no  means  ;  for  many,  as  my  opponent  himself 
ackno\vled<yes  are,  an  I  remain  graceless.  ^Notwithstanding 
baptisin,  according  to  his  theory,  is  an  emblem  of  this  inward, 
spiritual  grace  !  flow  s.'lf-contradictory  !  Is  it  possible  that, 
O  >J  vlio  cannut  lie,  should  have  appointed  an  emblem,  which 
proves  to  be  a  teachv^r  of  lies  to  many  thousands  ?  To  affirm 
this,  would  be  a  most  horrid  b'asphemy.  It  is  in  vain  to  say, 
baptism  is  only  a  true  sign  of  the  inward  grace,  to  such  as 
believe,  but  not  to  unbelievers  ;  because  we  might  as  well 
conclude,  that  the  word  of  God,  which  is  the  essence  in  bap-, 
tistn,  is  only  true  when  believed  ;  but  otherwise  it  is  a  false- 
hood. This  woalfl  be  repugnant  to  the  scriptures.  God's  ve- 
racity does  not  depend  upon  our  faith.  *'Ir' we  believe  not, 
yet  lie  abideth  faithful  ;  he  cannot  deny  hiniscb. "  2  Tim.  2, 
13.  "For  what  if  -ome  did  not  believe  ?  shall  their  unbelief 
make  the  'aith  of  God  witliout  effect  ?  God  forbid."  Rom. 
o,  3,  4.  Nosv  such  as  teach,  that  baptism  is  an  outward  em- 
blem of  an  inward,  spiritual  irrace,  must  either  admit,  1st, 
that  aV  the  baptised  possess  this  grace  ;  or,  2d,  that  it  is  a  ly- 
ing emblem  to  many  thousands  ;  or,  3d.  that  the  veracity  of 
this  emblem  solely  depends  upon  our  faith,  and  not  upon  di^ 
vine  authority  The  first,  my  opponent  himself  does  not  ad- 
mit— to  assert  the  second,  that  God  should  have  appointed  a 
lying  sign,  would  be  a  blasphemy — and  the  third,  that  the 
divine  veracity  should  depend  upon  our  faith,  would  be  ab- 
suril,  and  antisrr'ptural.  From  these  considerations  it  jip- 
pears,  that  baptism  cannot  be  an  outward  emblem  of  an  in- 
ward, spiritual  grace. 

When  we  view  baptism  as  the  ordinary  means  of  regene- 
ration, no  such  inconsistencies  will  result.  Although  many 
resist  the  grace,  of  which  it  is  a  means,  so  as  not  to  be  saved 
by  it  ;  yet  it  remains  true,  the  same  as  the  gospel  is  ti*ue, 
though  resisted  by  unbe'ievers.  God  is  good  ;  though  we  be 
wicked  ;  he  ^s  merciful,  and  declares  h:s  good  v^ill  towards 
ws  by  his  word,  :ind  sacraments  ;  though  we  reject  it  ;  and 
thus  we  are  left  without  an  excuse. 

I  deem  it  a  duty,  which  I  owe  to  the  Christian  publick, 
■more  explicitly  to  assert  mv  objections,  against  the  much  pre- 
valent opinion  of  the  sacraments  being  emblems.  Not  only 
my  opponent  has  assertcfl,  that  water  is  a  figure,  or  emblem 
of  the  spirit  ;  but  it  is  also  a  very  cut  rent  language  among 


S3 

many  of  the  severa'  denominations,  professing  Christianity, 
to  call  water  in  baptism,  an  emb-eni  of  the  spuit  ;  and  bnad, 
and  wine  in  the  Lord's  Siippei ,  emblcn.s  ol  the  body  and 
blood  Ol'  Jl-sus  Christ.  An  enibleai  is  an  allusive  picture  ; 
hence  an  image,  a  uding  to  somt  person  or  thing.  A  repre- 
sentation is  tUe  same,  'fh-ise  who  call  the  sacraments  tm- 
ble.ns,  or  representations,  abhor  the  idea,  that  the  sp.nt  should 
operate  through  baptism  ;  and  ol  Christ's  body,  and  blood  be- 
ing present  in  the  holy  Rucharist  Such  texts,  which  declare 
the  connexion  ol  the  spirit  with  the  waier  ;  and  the  presence 
ol  Christ's  body  and  blood,  as  tor  instance  :  'Except  a  nan 
be  born  of  water,  and  of  the  spirit,  &c. '  John  8,  5 — 'take, 
eat  ;  this  is  my  body — this  is  my  blood  of  the  nev\  testa- 
ment, &c. '  Matth.  26,  26,  27— they  by  a  ti-ojiical  invention 
cause,  that  the  water,  and  bread,  and  wine,  are  metan  i  rpho- 
sed  into  emblems  of  the  spirit,  and  of  the  body  and  bloofl  of 
Jesus.  But  to  use  emblems  in  divine  worship,  is  not  only  a 
superstitious  idolatry,  but  it  is  also  condemned  by  the  scrip- 
tures, "Thou  shall  not  make  unto  thieany  graveri  image,  or 
any  likeness  of  any  thing  that  is  in  heaven  above,  or  that  is 
in  the  earth  beneath,  or  that  is  in  the  water  under  the  earth  : 
thou  sha!t  not  bow  down  thyself  to  them,  nor  serve  them,  fee.'* 
Exod.  20,  4,  5.  Now  to  construe  any  sacred  text,  v%hich 
speaks  o'  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  by  leaving  the  ob- 
vious, grammatical  sense  ;  so  as  to  convert  those  sacraments 
into  emblems,  which  contradicts  God's  command,  which  pro- 
hibits all  emblems,  or  images  in  divine  worship,  is  nothing 
but  corruiiting  the  holy  scriptures.  Baptism  is  administered 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  acconpa- 
nied  by  the  invocatlai  of  the  divine  blessings.  The  Lord's 
Supper  is  also,  celebi-ated  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  uith  devout 
[prayers,  and  reverential  postures  ;  so  that  it  is  evident :  those 
lessed  sacraments  are  used  in,  and  incorporated  with  divine 
worship.  Since  they  are  used  in  divine  worship  ;  und  ytt, 
viewed  as  emblems,  or  representations  by  those  aheady  men- 
tioned, what  do  they  otherwise,  than  convict  themselves  as 
idolaters  ?  In  vain  such  protestant  denominations  execrate 
the  Papists,  for  using  imaajes  in  their  worship  ;  w  hen  they 
themselves,  by  a  tropical  interpretation  convert  baptism  and 
the  Lor'^l's  Supper  into  emblems,  which  they  a'so  use  in  their 
worship  !  What  can  be  the  difference,  whether  I  represent 
the  crucified  Jesus  by  a  wooden,  or  golden  emblem,  or  by  the 
emblems  of  bread  and  wine  ? 

A.n  emblem  being  an  allusive  picture  ;  hence,  it  must  shew 
«s  the  foriDj  and  complexion  of  whatsoever  thing;  to  which  it- 


I 


84 

raay  allude — Or,  in  other  words,  there  must  be  a  striking  sim^ 
ilarity  becween  tlie  emblem,  and  thie  substance,  wh.cli  it  is 
to  represenc.  For  instance  :  the  emblem  ot  a  man,  shews  us 
his  features,  by  which  we  raay  easily  recognise  his  person. 
If  water  in  baptism  be  an  emblem  of  the  spirit,  then  it  must 
shew  us  his  form  and  complexion.  In  like  manner,  if  bread 
and  wme,  be  emblems  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus,  they 
must  also  represent  unto  us  the  form  ot  his  body,  and  the  co- 
lour, and  quantity  of  his  blood.  But  is  it  possible,  that  water 
can  be  a  representation  of  the  spirit  ?  The  holy  spirit  is  God, 
and  cannot  be  represented  by  water,  nor  any  other  thing. 
*' To  whom  will  ye  liken  God  ?  or  what  likeness  will  ye  com- 
pare unto  him  ?"  Isa.  40,  18.  Ati  !  says  one,  water  in 
baptism,  is  a  fit  emblem  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  it  beautifully  re- 
presents his  purifying  influence  I !  Do  not  reason,  and  com- 
mon sense,  as  well  as  divine  revelation,  speak  aloud  against 
the  abominable  practice  of  representing  the  infinite  holy  spirit 
by  an  emblem,  or  similitude  of  water  ?  What  greater  aftront 
can  we  offer  to  God,  an  I  what  greater  cheat  can  we  put  upon 
ourselves,  by  such  gi'oss  absurdities  and  such  pagan  imitations. 
Again,  who  can  possibly  believe,  that  a  piece  of  bread,  and 
wine  in  the  holy  Eucharist,  can  be  emblems  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Jesus  ?  Who  among  us,  have  ever  seen  his  body 
and  blood  ;  so  as  to  know  what  manner  of  bread  and  wine  to 
ch)ose,  to  represent  them  ?  The  Lord's  Supper  is  adminis- 
tered in  many  places  ;  hence,  all  the  bread  every  where,  can- 
not be  alike  ;  some  is  larger  ;  some  smaller  ;  and  diversified 
with  respect  to  beauty,  and  colour  ;  hence,  if  bread  is  to  re- 
present the  body  of  Jesus,  there  must  be  as  many  different  bo- 
dies, as  there  are  different  kinds  of  bread  ;  and  every  commu- 
nicant, must  figure  tlie  body  of  Christ  to  his  imagination  ac- 
cording to  the  piece  of  bread,  he  may  have  in  his  hand  ;  for 
he  is  diligently  taught,  that  this  bread  is  to  be  view-ed,  as  a  fit 
representation  of  the  broken  body  of  Jesus  The  same  may 
be  said  with  respect  to  the  wine,  and  the  blood  of  Christ.  All 
this  would  be  absurd.  If  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are 
not  more  glorious,  than  the  dead  and  cormptible  elements  of 
bread  and  wine,  are  calculated  to  represent  them,  he  indt-ed 
cannot  be  a  Saviour  ;  but  he  must  be  the  most  stupid  idol. 
Bread  and  the  Saviour's  body,  have  no  resemblance  ;  for  who 
could  recocjnise  his  body,  by  seeing  this  bread  ?  No  man 
could  possibly  conjecture,  that  this  bread  looks  like  the  glori- 
ous, and  incorruptible  bodv  of  Jesus.  This  bread  has  neither 
ji:he  form,  nor  the  complexion  of  the  Snviour's  body,  even  as  it 
yva,^  in  his  state  of  humiliation  ;  much  less  now,  since  he  lives 


85 

in  a  superlative  state  of  glory.  Whosoever  views  the  elements 
in  the  Eucharist,  as  emblems  of  the  Saviour's  body  and  blood, 
must  also,  thereby  figure  to  himself  the  form,  and  complexion 
of  this  body  and  blood  ;  for  tliis  is  the  design  of  an  emblem  : 
but  as  it  is  utterly  out  of  the  question,  for  the  true  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  to  be  represented  by  any  thing  ;  such  an  one, 
must  necessarily  fancy  a  body  and  blood,  which  are  like  unto 
bread  and  wine  ;  and  such  a  body  and  blood,  are  no  where 
m  existence  :  thus  bread  and  wine,  if  viewed  as  emblems,  are 
nothing  but  teachers  of  lies  ;  and  are  calculated  to  corrupt  our 
minds  ;  so  as  to  cause  us  to  view  the  inmiortal  Saviour,  like 
unto  cormptib  e  bread  and  wine,  the  same  as  the  images  cor- 
rupted the  minds  of  the  heathens.  Although,  such  as  are  al- 
ready mentioned,  only  design  with  bread  and  wine,  to  repre- 
sent Ciirist's  humanity  ;  yet,  not  only  as  is  already  stated^ 
they  cannot  be  used  as  emblems,  without  representing  a  false 
Christ  ;  but  such  is  also  posinvely  prohibited  by  the  divine 
command,  "thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  any  likeness  of  any 
thing  that  is  in  heaven  above  "  Now  Christ,  according  to 
the  views  of  nearly  all,  is  in  heaven  above  ;  hence  to  make  a 
representation  of  his  body  and  blood,  is  a  positive  defiance  to 
the  divine  prohibition.  Such  as  are  destitute  ot  faith,  bet  their 
imagination  at  work  ;  they  fancy  to  themselves  the  holy  spirit, 
like  unto  water  ;  and  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  like  unto 
bread  and  wine  ;  and  all  the  while,  are  very  sincere,  and  un- 
disturbed  in  this  their  idolatrous  worship.  The  heathens 
committed  a  similar  mistake,  which  proved  fatal.  The  works 
of  creation,  were  calculated  to  convince  them  of  the  existence 
of  God  ;  for  the  heavens  declare  his  glory,  and  the  firma- 
ment shews  forth  his  handy  work  j  suns,  and  worlds  unnum- 
bered, like  so  many  letters  spell  the  adorable  name  jehuvah. 
In  all,  they  could  have  discovered  his  operations  ;  hence  his 
presence  :  "because  that  which  may  be  known  of  God  is  man- 
ifest in  them  :  for  God  hath  shewed  it  unto  them  :  for  the  in- 
visible things  of  him  from  the  creation  ot  the  world  are  clearly 
seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  that  are  made,  even  his 
eternal  power  and  Godh<=ad  ;"  Rom.  1.  19,  20.  But  in- 
stead of  viewing  him  in  his  works,  and  giving  him  glory,  ac- 
cording to  his  dignity,  they  prostituted  his  creatures  for  the  pur- 
pose of  figuring  a  shape,  or  similitude  of  him  to  themselves. 
Thus  some  viewed  one,  and  others  another  thinp,  as  an  em- 
blem of  God  ;  or,  as  the  apostle  expresses  himself:  "they 
changed  the  glory  of  the  incorruptible  God  into  an  image 
made  like  to  corruptible  man,  and  to  birds,  and  fourf'ooted 
Ijeasts,  and  creeping  things*''    v,  2S»     Under  the  Christian 


8® 

dispensation,  God  instituted  baptism,  in  which  he  offers  life, 
and  salvation,  and  in  which  the  ho.y  spirit  is  shed  on  us  abun- 
dantly ;  bat  instead  of  beheving  the  divine  piomises,  many  set 
their  imagination  at  work  ;  they  create  an  emb.eni,  and  tluis 
change  the  incorruptible  glory  ot  the  ho  y  spirit  into  a  corrup- 
tible image,  lik-^  unto  water.  The  blessed  Jesus  appointed 
his  supper,  but  instead  of  viewing  his  blessed  body  and  blood 
present ;  they  consider  them  far  absen  ,  and  change  their  in- 
corruptible  giory,  into  images  of  corruptible  elements. 

In  this  small  work,  the  reader  cannot  expect  to  find  an  ela- 
borate dissertation  on  the  Lord's  Supper ;  neither  is  it  the  point 
in  question,  except  in  so  far,  as  it  respects  the  doctrines  ot  em- 
blems and  of  consubstantiation.  But  whereas,  I  consider  the 
doctrines  of  transubstantiation,  consubstantiation,  and  of  tm- 
blems  as  erroneous  ;  some  of  my  readers,  who  perhaps  may  not 
be  so  well  acquainted  with  the  doctrine,  which  Lutherans 
maintain  with  respect  to  this  subject,  I  deem  it  necessary,  to 
make  a  few  remarks  on  the  words  Oi  the  institution.  They 
are  as  follows:  "And  as  they  were  eating,  Jesus  took  bread, 
and  blessed  it,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to  the  disciples,  and 
said,  Take,  eat ;  this  is  ray  body.  And  he  took  the  cup,  and 
gave  thanks,  and  gave  it  to  them,  saying,  Drink  ye  all  o:  it : 
for  this  is  my  blood  of  the  new  testament,  \Nhich  is  shed  for 
manv  for  the  remission  of  sins."  Matth.  26,  26-28.  See  Mark 
14,  22.  St.  Luke  ch.  22,  19.  20,  gives  the  same  description, 
with  the  addition  of  describing  what  body  it  is:  viz.  ''which  is 
jiven  for  you;"  and  also,  ''Do  this  in  remembrance  of  nie." 
Some  of  those,  who  deny  the  presence  of  Christ's  body  ynd 
blood,  give  these  wor  Is  a  tropical  interpretation.  A  trope, 
according  to  the  rules  of  lihetorick  is,  when  a  word  loses  its 
natural  meaning  and  another  is  substituted  ;  as  for  instance  r 
"the  seven  stars  are  the  anoe's  of  the  seven  churches  ;  and  the 
seven  candle-sticks  vi'hich  thou  sawest  are  the  seven  churches." 
Rev.  1,  20.  In  this  text,  stains  and  candle-stick}>  have  lost 
their  natural  meaning,  and  sjgnifj'  angels,  and  churches.  This 
is  applied  to  the  vvords,  "  this  is  my  body  " — "•  this  is  my  blood: " 
that  is,  bread  and  luine  have  lost  their  natural  meaning,  and 
are  figuratively  called  body  and  blood ;  hence,  the  obvious 
meaning  would  be,  this  bread  as  an  emblem,  represents  my 
body,  and  this  wine  my  blood.  I  have  also  discovered  in  the 
works  of  a  learned  commentator,  some  such  idea  as  this :  w  hen 
we  seethe  picture  of  a  certain  man,  with  whom  we  are  acquain- 
ted, it  is  quite  natural,  when  we  point  at  it,  to  say:  this  is  the 
roan,  by  repeating  his  name  :  althoogh  it  is  only  his  Tkeress, 
This  he  applies  to  the  words  here  iu  question :  thus  because  the 


87 

bread  is  an  emblem  of  the  Saviour's  body,  it  was  very  naturat 
for  him  to  say:  this  is  my  body,  when  it  only  signified  it.  I 
admit  it  to  be  correct,  that  when  we  see  the  image  of  a  n)an, 
to  say,  it  is  the  man ;  but  this  cannot  apply  to  the  bread  in  the 
Eucharist ;  because  by  the  iinage  we  know  a  man  is  represen- 
ted ;  because  it  resembles  him  ;  bui  by  a  piece  of  bread,  the  Sa- 
viour's body  cannot  be  recognised ,  foi  brt-ad  does  not  resemble  it* 
Again,  it  is  by  no  means  tiue,  that  C  hrist  cal!ed  the  bread  his 
body,  the  same  as  the  seven  stars,  are  called  the  angels  ot  the 
seven  churches,  and  the  candle-sticks  the  churches.  It  is  ad- 
mitted, that  if  the  phrase  " f/iis  is, "  referred  to  bread,  that 
there  would  be  some  reason  to  say,  this  br^ad  signifies  my 
body.  But  bread  in  the  original  is,  tov  aptov  in  the  accusa- 
tive case,  and  mascu'ine  gender.  "Now  it  the  words  *'this  is 
my  body"  have  an  allusion  to  bread,  then  the  pronoun  'Uhis^ 
ought  to  asjree  in  gender  with  the  word  bread.  Bread  in  the 
original,  as  is  already  observed,  is  in  the  masculine  gender; 
whereas  the  pronoun  Hh  s^  is  rovto  ;  hence,  in  the  neuter 
gender.  If  the  text  would  read  :  orroj  tyt,  then  bread,  or 
top  a^tof,  might  be  its  antecedent  :  because  ovtoi  is  masculine, 
ani  would  thus  agree  in  gender  ;  but  as  all  three  of  the  Evan- 
gelists have  the  neuter  tovto,  it  is  evident,  that  bread,  because 
it  is  masculine  cannot  be  its  antecedent.  By  what  rules  of 
language  can  it  be  mad»^  appear,  that  a  neuter  relative  pro- 
noun, can  have  a  masculine  antecedent  ?  Since  the  idiom  of 
the  Greek  text,  does  not  admit  the  bread,  it  being  masculine, 
to  be  the  antecedent  of  the  pronoun  ^'this,"  it  being  neuter,  it 
is  evident,  that  this  tropical,  and  popular  explanation  :  "this 
bread  signifies  my  body,"  is  a  gross  violation  of  the  rules  of 
grammar  ;  hence  vulgar,  sophistical,  and  an  imposition  upon 
the  understanding  of  the  common  English  reader.  Since  it 
is  plain,  that  the  bread  cann)t,  by  all  the  literary  Alchymists 
be  made  a  signification  of  Christ's  body,  unless  by  forcing, 
contrary  to  all  sound  rules,  a  masculine  and  a  neuter  to  agree ; 
the  question  wil'  arise,  what  is  the  antecedent  to  the  relative 
pronoun  "this  ?"  (tov-eo)  Its  antecedent  must  also  be  a  neu- 
ter. It  must  be  fte;ayua,  the  thing  understood  :  hence  some- 
thing more,  and  different  from  the  bread.  I  shall  by  no  means 
interpose  my  private  opinion  ;  but  exhibit  St.  Paul's  interpre- 
tation, which  will  elucidate  the  Saviour's  words.  He  says, 
1  Cor.  10,  16,  "The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not 
the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  the  bread  which  we 
break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?"  In 
these  words,  the  cup  is  called  the  communion  of  the  blood, 
•ind  the  bread  the  communion  of  the  body  of  Christ»    A  com- 


S8 

munion  requires  at  least,  the  connexion  of  two  things  ;  hence, 
as  the  cup  is  the  communion  of  the  blood,  it  is  evident,  that 
the  cup  and  the  blood,  must  in  some  manner  be  connected. 
The  same  applies  to  the  bread  and  the  body.  Now  as  the 
bread  is  the  communion  ot  the  body,  it  proves  that  Christ  gave 
his  disciples  more  than  simple  bread  ;  he  indeed  gave  them 
bread  ;  but  such  a  bread,  as  was  the  communion  of  his  body  : 
for  this  reason  he  could  say,  "this  is"  (in  the  neuter  gender) 
my  body.  If  the  doctrine  of  emblems  v\as  true,  the  apostle 
ought  to  have  said,  the  cup  ot  b'essing  which  we  bless,  is  it 
not  an  emb'em  of  the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  the 
bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  an  emblem  of  the  communion 
of  the  body  of  Christ  ?  Thus  not  only  the  word  emblem, 
would  have  to  be  arbitrarily  added  to  the  sacred  text,  which 
is  corrupting  it  ;  but  bread  and  wine,  could  not  agreeable  to 
the  above  named  tropical  explanation,  be  emblems  of  the  bo- 
dy and  blood  of  Christ  ;  but  only  emblems  of  their  commu- 
nion, for  which  there  is  no  foundation  in  the  scriptures.  A- 
greeableto  this  view,  neither  tran substantiation,  nor  emblems 
can  find  anv  countenance.  And  as  it  respects  the  connexion, 
between  the  body  and  the  bread  ;  and  the  cup  and  the  blood, 
it  is  only  temporary,  as  the  apostle  says,  the  cup  of  blessing 
which  we  bless  :  viz.  whilst  we  are  blessing  it  in  the  distribu- 
tion, is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood  ?  for  he  does  not 
say,  that  it  h  such,  when  it  is  not  blessed  : — and  the  bread 
which  we  break,  viz  ;  when  we  break  it  for  distribution,  is 
it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  ?  for  he  does  not  say,  that 
it  is  such,  when  we  do  not  break  it.  Hence  no  incorporation, 
or  consubstantiation  can  take  place  Or,  as  I  have  already 
said,  in  the  second  section.     See  page,  7  &  8. 

What  I  have  here  said,  on  the  subject  of  the  Lord's  Sup» 
per  is  not  deemed  sufficient,  to  answer  every  objection,  that 
may  be  brought  by  those,  who  deny  the  real  presence  ;  but 
I  considered  it  necessary  to  say  so  much,  for  the  reason  al- 
ready assigned.  But  if  any  one  shall  consider  it  necessary,  to 
write  against  me,  on  this  subject,  I  shall  then  give  a  full  re-' 
ply  :  provided,  I  get  to  see  the  work. 


SECTION  XI. 

An  examination  of  my  opponent's  arguments,  with  respect  to  the  one  true, 
essential  baptism,  &.c. 

Ill  my  treatise  I  proved,  that  there  is  but  one  baptism,  acv 


89 

cording  io  St.  Paul:  'One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,' 
Fipli  i,  5  ;  and  tiiin  obscrvt'd,  that  such  a^  teach  two  bap- 
tisms ui  the  churcli,  round  y  contiadsct  the  apostle.  On  tliis 
Mr.  M.  observes  p.  42,  "Mr.  H.  has  either  lorg-  tten,  or  has 
not  attended  to  that  saying  of  St.  Paul,  in  Heb.  6,  2: 'Tie 
doctrine  of  baptisms,'  in  the  plural:  whichcertamly  proves  that 
there  must  be  more  baptisn  s  than  one,  or  cise  now  could  1  e 
have  spoken  the  truth?  Thus  to  the  Ephesians,  he  says,  'One 
baptism' — to  the  Hebrew  s  he  says,  'Ihe  doctrine oi  baptist  s.' 
which  means  more  than  one.  ^ovv  as  St  Pant  did  not  mean 
to  contradict  himself,  it  will  dev(;lve  on  "SS'iv.  H  to  reconcile 
Pau!  with  Paul;  to  show  how  Paul  to  the  HcbrevAS,  did  mt 
contradi;"t  Paul  to  the  Ephesans.  When  he  does  this,  I  think 
wc  shall  get  clear  of  the  heavy  charge  he  brings  against  us,  viz : 
*'Hovv  roundly  such  men  contradict  the  apostlt,  when  they 
speak  of  two  baptisms"  "Were  I  to  unciertake  it,  1  would 
say,  1.  There  is  John's  baptism  of  water  unto  repentance.  2. 
Tbere  is  the  Chiistian  baptism  periorn.ed  in  tht  name  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Ho'y  Ghost.  3  There  is  thi-  baptisn'  of  the 
spii-it,  admini^teI'ed  by  Christ  h'mself,  according  to  the  predic- 
tion of  John.  Viewing  it  in  this  light,  we  may  say  with  Piuil 
to  tlie  H'brew^'i,  'The  doctrine  of  baptisn^s.'  But  as  the  spirit 
is  the  thing  signified,  and  is  the  only  one  which  is  essentia!  to 
salvation,  w  e  may,  w  ith  Paul  to  the  Ephesians,  say, '  One  bap- 
tism,' i.  e.  one  true  essential  baptisn  ,  w  hich  alone  is  suft  cient  to 
save  us.  &  the  others  are  only  a  ^ign  or  eniblem  of  this,  Bi  t  as 
the  sijjn,  and  the  thing  signified,  both  agree  in  one,  both  dcMgn- 
ed  to  bring  us  to  the  same  end,  viz.  the  regeneralicn  and  salva- 
tion of  the  soul .  they  are  not  considered  tico,  but  one :  i.  e.  one 
in  aureemcnt,  design  and  end;  as  Si.  John  says:  'Theie  are 
thee  that  bear  record  on  earth,  th^  spirit,  the  v^atei  and  the 
blood  ;  and  these thrt^e  agrt- e  in  one  '  1  John  v.  8  So  we  n-ay 
say  in  this  ease — the  spirit  and  the  water  agree  m  one. —  But  as 
the  natural  water  is  not  the  spirit,  nor  the  spirit  the  natuial 
water;  and  as  they  are  not  connected  together. but  applied  srpa- 
rately,  the  one  externally,  the  other  internally ;  and  also,  as 
people  may  be  and  often  are  baptised  with  vAater,  who  never 
receive  the  baptism  of  the  spirit ;  they  may,  in  that  sense,  be 
considered  baptisms.  Hence  view  ing  it  in  thii-  light,  I  think 
we  may,  witii  propriety,  say  with  the  apostle  to  the  Kebiews, 
'The  docfrinc  of  bapli.sms,''  without  contradicting  Pau!  to  the 
Ephesims. — and  with  Paul  to  the  Ephesians,  'One  baptismf* 
without  eontr.idi«"ting  the  apo'-tle  to  the  Hebrews  " 

Answer.     Th<ise  Kvo  texts  may  ea^i'y  be  reconciled,  with- 
out having  recourse  to  a  plurality  of  baptisms,  agreeing  in  one 

M 


00 

design.  The  writer  to  the  Hebrews  in  this  text,  does  not  say 
one  word  with  respect  to  baptisms,  as  being  in  use  inxu  r  .he 
g)spel  dispensation;  but  he  simply  mentions  the  docirbit  o^ 
ba  )tisms.  Wliere  does  he  say,  ihere  are  baptisr  s,  ilie  sume 
as  the  ai)ost*e  to  the  Eoh'sians  declares,  there  is  one  baptsm? 
"  P'lere  is  one  body,  an  1  one  spirit,  even  as  ye  are  called,  in 
one  hope  of  your  calling;  one  Lord,  one  iaiih,one  baptism, 
one  God  and  Father  ofal!,  &c  "  Eph.  4.  4-6.  This  text  does 
not  say,  the  doctrine  of  one  body,  and  one  spiiit;  one  Lord, 
one  faith,  one  baptism;  but  posili\ely,  there  is  une  body,  one 
spirit,  &e.  There  is  a  considerable  diffeicnce  bctw  een  saying: 
'•^  there  is  one  baptism,"  and  "the  doctrin  oi  baptisn.s."  Ihe 
sane  as  th*re  is  one  budy,  i.  e.  the  church, and  one  spiiit;  t  ne 
Lord,  and  one  faith  ;  so  there  is  also  one  baptism.  But  the 
phrase,  "the  doctrine  of  baptisms,"'  does  not  necessarily  im- 
ply, that  baptisms  must  also  really  exist  ;  ior  such  although, 
formerly  in  vogue,  may  have  been  abrogated  ;  and  yet,  it  may 
br*  expedient  to  teach  the  doctriiie  relative  to  su' h,  in  point- 
ing out  their  former  uses,  the  same  as  u  hen  St.  Paul  taught- 
the  Romans  and  Ga'atians  the  former  use  of  circuncision  ; 
a'though,  it  was  then  ah-eady  abolished.  Whene\er  Mr.  M. 
shall  have  proved,  that  the  baptisms,  of  v^  hose  doctrine  the 
xvriter  to  the  Hebrews  had  spt)ken.  are  all  yet  in  vog-ue  in 
the  Christian  chui'ch,  then  only  can  he  argue,  a  plurality  of 
baptis.ms,  agreeing  in  one  design.  St.  Paul  to  the  Ephesians 
attributes  the  same  oneness  to  baptism,  as  he  does  to  body, 
sph^it.  Lord,  faith.  Go./,  and  Father.  Hence  as  it  would 
be  ineonsistent,  to  seek  for  a  p'urality  of  bodies,  spirits, 
faiths.  Lords,  Gods,  and  Fathers,  agreeing  in  one  ;  evt  n  so 
little  ought  we  to  contend  for  a  p'urality  of  baptisms  ;  and 
th^-n  seek  th-nr  oneness  in  agreement. 

Is  it  pos'^ible,  'hat  Mr.  ]>L  can  believe, that  John's  baptism  is 
yet  in  vogue  aiii  )nQ:  Christians  ?  since  he  so  confidently  asserts, 
*'l  Thve  is  John's  baptism  of  water  unto  repentance — 2d, 
the  Christian  baptism,  &c.  in  order  to  establi-b  a  p'urality 
of  baptisms  He  ought  to  hav**  said,  there  teas,  and  not 
there  is  John's  baptism.  Surely  he  cannot  be  so  ignorant 
as  to  believe,  thot  John's  baptism,  together  with  the  Cliris- 
tian,  p'M'formed  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  are  both 
to  be  u^ed  in  the  church  ?  If  J  hn's  baptism  be  yet  in  vogue, 
then  we  must  be  bai^tised  tuice  \\  ith  water.  iSly  opponent 
ought  certainly  to  know,  that  th.ere  is  but  one  baptism  with 
water,  even  i''  he  contends  for  another,  wit'  out  it.  I''  so  ; 
why  does  he  introduce  John's  baptism  ?  What  has  that  to 
do  with  the  point  in  question  ?     If  even  he  hud  proved;  that 


91 

once  there  had  been  many  more  baptisms,  it  would  be  no- 
thing at  al!  to  this  argunient.  The  quehtiun  is,  Uuw  n.any 
baotisms  are  new  in  tiie  church  ; — anti  n<^t,  how  n.any  NM-bh- 
ings  (calietl  baptisms)  thi-re  were  under  ilie  lau  r  or^  huvv 
many  there  were  with  John's  baptism  ?  As  a  rational  ex- 
positor, lie  cannot  suppose  two  watei  bapti^ms  ;  hence  1  un- 
derstand him,  that  nc  contends  tor  two  baptisms,  tlic  one 
consisting  of  water,  and  the  ether  ot  the  spirit,  which  are 
one  m  agreement.  Bu  how  does  he  piove  it  r  W  ha! — ■ 
By  Heb,  tJ.  2  ?  because  it  speaks  oitlie  dr.ctiine  of  baptisms, 
which  IS  in  the  p'ura!  number  ?  This  is  not  only  gn.und- 
less,  for  the  reas  »n  aheady  assigned  ;  but  also,  because  this 
tex.t  does  not  speak  of  the  doeti  ine  ol  baptisms,  in  the  dual 
number.  According  to  the  i(Uom  of  the  Greek  language, 
two,  do  not  amount  to  a  plural  number.  There  arethiee 
numbers  :  the  singular,  the  dual,  and  the  p'ural.  The  sin- 
gular expresses  one  ;  the  dual  two  ;  and  the  plural,  any  num- 
bc'-  above  two  ;  so  that  noihinu-  less  than  three,  can  be  p'ural* 
Tie  text  has  jlartftd^wv,  the  genitive  case,  and  p'ural  num- 
b'^r.  BaTttiiu.ot.v.  is  dud'  ;  h'licc  expres^es  .wo  baptisms. 
Bit  as  this  text  does  not  express  "the  doeUine  ol  baptisms," 
in  the  dud,  but  in  the  plural  number,  which  necessarily  le- 
quiivs  at  b'ast  three  ;  hence  also,  upon  this  ground  it  is  in  vain, 
to  urge  this  text  to  prove  two  baptisms.  He  must  either  ad- 
mit, thvit  there  are  three,  or  more  bajitisnis  ;  or  else  the  bap- 
tisms were  abrogated.  There  certainly  cannot  be  three,  or 
more  baptisms  ;  md  as  th  s  text,  even  to  force  it  to  n  can  bj-p- 
tisais,  as  existing  now,  cannot  possilily  allude  to  twoba])ti^n;s  ; 
b.^causc  it  is  plural,  it  is  evident,  that  by  all  the  uncoutli  scj  h- 
istry  it  cannot,  without  detection  be  prostituted  to  prove  two 
baptisms. 

In  order  to  prove  that  there  is  a  distinct  baptism  of  the 
spirit,  from  that  of  water,  Mr  M.  proceeds  page  41,  "We 
will  first  take  a  view  of  the  testimony  that  John  the  Baptist 
gives  on  this  subject.  '  I  indeed  baptise  you  with  water  :  but 
he  sha'l  baptise  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire.'  Matth.  8, 
11.  Also  Mark  1,8  'I  indeed  have  baptised  you  v\ith  wa- 
ter ;  bat  he  shall  baptise  you  with  the  Ho'y  Ghost.'  Thus 
you  may  see  that  John  makfs  a  clear  distinct  on  betwee  n  his 
water  baptism,  and  the  baptism  of  the  spirit,  with  which  Christ 
was  ti  baptise.  In  Mark,  it  is  st.«ted,  I  have  baptised  you 
with  water,  (past  tense,)  but  hr  (Chri-it)  shall  baptise  you,  (fu- 
ture tense  ;  )  which  indubitably  proves,  that  the  water  and 
spirit  w^ere  n^t  connect'^d  toge-ber,  but  w  rre  received  at  difler- 
ent  periods  of  time.     Tiiis  testimony  of  Jolm  is  confirmed  by 


92 

Christ,  Acts  1,  5.  ^John  truly  did  baptise  with  wafer,  but  ye 
s.iail  be  bj,piiac;d  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  niuU)  days  htiice  ;' 
which  makes  it  evident  that  they  wei-e  not  connected  together. 
See  alvj  Acts  ix,  16.     John  1,  So.  " 

Answer,  vV^hat  are  tliese  texts  to  prove  ?  1  hatregenera- 
ti  )n  is  erfected  by  the  baptism  ot  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  hre  ? 
Tney  say  not  one  word  ot  regenelration.  Neiihci,that  the 
bcipiisni  otth.'  spirit  is  the  internal,  anrl  the  on:y  true, essential, 
baptism.  Where  in  ail  the  sacred  scri]jtuies  is  it  said,  Ex- 
cept a  man  be  born  again  olthe  Holy  Ghost  and  fire,  or  by 
the  baptis  n  of  the  spirit,  he  cannot  enier  into  the  kingdon)  of 
God  ?  There  is  nothing  of  this  in  the  scriptuies.  Our  bles- 
sed Saviour  said'  'Except  a  man  be  born  oi  water,  and  of  the 
spiri;,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God. '  Juhn  3,  5. 
In  this  text,  as  well  as  in  many  others,  which  speak  ol  the 
baptism  pertormed  with  water,  regtne.ation  is  iiientioned  as 
th^"  re«uk  ;  whereas,  this  is  no  where  said  ot  the  spirit  ^  fire. 
Why  then  is  the  baptism  of  the  Hi>ly  Ghost,  and  iirc  introdu- 
ced, when  it  is  no  where  shewn,  that  it  is  the  means  of  regt  n- 
eration  ?  The  question  in  this  controversy,  is  not  v\helher 
there  ever  was  a  baptism  of  the  spirit,  and  tire  ?  but  whcliier 
regeneration  is  thereby  etfectcd  ?  Th.-  text^  which  my  op|;0- 
nent  has  qtioted,  on'y  pnwe  the  inlallibie  prcdi-  tion  oi  sucti  a 
baptism  ;  but  say  nothing;  of  regeneration.  It  seems,  that  be- 
cause such  an  extraordinary  baptism  was  predicted.  IN'ir.  M. 
immediately  concludes  that  therefore,  it  must  be  the  on'}  bap- 
tism by  which  souls  are  I'egenerated,  \yhcn  there  is  i:t thing 
said  of  regene;-ation  ;  as  if  this  ba})tisn)  of  the  sjiirit  could  not 
have  been  administered  for  any  otlier  purpose.  Such  reason- 
ing is  fallacious. 

The  text  in  St.  Matth  o,  11,  positively  connects  fire  with 
th»-  Ho'.y  Ghijst.  See  also  {,uke  3,  16.  Whether  this  fire 
allnd:"s  to  the  fire,  which  is  mentioned  as  a  threatening  in 
v»*rse  12,  which  is  to  burn  up  the  chafl" ;  or,  to  the  coven 
tongues  as  of  fire,  which  appeared  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
Acts  2,  §,  is  not  material  to  the  question  deb;' ted.  In  either 
case  it  was  a  baptism,  which  consisted  not  ot  the  spirit  alone, 
but  also  of  fire  ;  and  in  either  case  it  could  not  be  a  means  of 
regeneration.  A  baptism  of  fire  would  equail}'  be  externa], 
as  w'ell  as  a  baptism  of  water,  for  it  is  one  of  the  'our  ele- 
rncnts  ;  but  where  is  the  person  in  our  time,  who  has  ever 
seen  fire  descending  on  him,  for  the  purpose  of  effecting  re - 
g'Mieration  ?  Nevertheless  some  say,  the  fire  in  this  text,  does 
ijot  me  in  fire,  but  the  fiie  of  divine  Love,  v  ith  \^h'ch  we  aie 
to  be  baptised,     Bui  how  do  they  prove  it  ?     By  nothing- ; 


9S 

unless  an  arbitrary  assertion  he  considered  a  proof.  If  the 
word  tire  in  tins  text,  is  to  signity  divine  Lo\e,  1  woultl  then 
ask,  is  not  the  Holy  (ihost  himself  divine  Love  r  He  is  God; 
and  God  is  Love.  I  John  4,  8.  Aeeording  to  this,  ciivine 
Love  would  be  mentioned  twice  in  this  phrase.  Hence  the 
text  would  have  to  read,  'Hi  shall  baptise  you  with  tlu  Htly 
G  lost,  and  divine  Love. '  Wiiat  ! — iie  sh.dl  baptise  you  v\  ith 
tne  Holy  Ghust.  who  him  eif  is  divine  Love,  and  with  in e, 
which  is  flivine  Lisve  1  VVh  t  a  ridiculoiis  tautology  this 
would  be  !  Yet,  it  seems  the  inspired  writers  n'U^t  havi  this 
n  »nsensc  attributed  to  their  language  ;  so  that  those  fanaticks 
may  explain  away  the  meaning  of  the  word  fire,  because  oth- 
erwise, it  would  prove  hostile  to  their  S(  heme. 

The  text  Acis  1.  5.  parallel  wi  h  Mark  1,  8,  is  a  part  of 
our  Saviour's  address  to  his  apostles,  when  he  was  about  to 
ascend  to  heav  n.  See  v.  2,  ^,  4.  That  they  should  be  bap- 
tised with  the  Holy  Ghost,  not  many  days  hence,  alluded  to 
t  ie  period  often  days,  the  day  of  Pentecost,  or  til'ty  days  alter 
Christ's  resurrection.  He  tod  them,  v.  8,  'but  ye  shall  re- 
ceive power,  after  th.vt  the  Ho'y  Ghost  is  come  uponvou: 
and  ye  shaU  be  witnesses  unto  me,  both  in  Jerusalem,  and  in 
all  Judea,  and  in  Samaria,  and  unto  the  uttermost  part  ot  the 
earth. '  Tiie  text  does  not  say,  ye  >!  all  be  ngenerated,  after 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  come  upon  you  ;  but  ye  shall  be  wit- 
n  'sses  unto  me  both  in  Jerusalem,  and  in  all  Judea,  &c  This 
indicates  the  supernatural  qualification,  w  hirh  they  should  re- 
ceive from  the  miracu.ous  descent  of  ih(  Holj  Ghost,  to  ena- 
ble them  to  bear  the  gospel  niinisiry.  Hence  they  were  com- 
manded not  to  depart  from  Jerusalem,  but  to  v^ait  for  the 
promise  of  the  father,  v.  4  In  the  21  chapt/r  the  fulfilment 
oi"  this  promise  is  described  :  "And  sndden'y  there  came  a 
sound  from  heaven  as  of  a  rushing  mighty  v  ind,  ard  it  filh  d 
the  house  where  they  were  sittins-.  And  'here  appeared  unto 
them  cloven  tongu-'s  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  s  it  upon  each  of 
them.  And  they  were  a'l  fil'ed  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
bi«gan  to  speak  with  other  tongues,  as  the  spirit  jjave  tben>  ut- 
terance."' V.  2,  S,  4.  And  v.  6-11,  we  ae  informed  that 
of  the  different  nations,  such  as  Partians,  Med'  s,  Elamit<  s,&c 
who  were  assembled  in  Jerusalem,  heard  them  speak  ev(  ry 
man  in  his  own  tongue.  Thus  it  is  evident,  the  bapt'sm  of 
th'^  Holy  Ghost  is  nothing  else,  than  the  miraculous  eftusion 
of  the  spirit.  If  Mr  M's  doctrine  be  true,  that  the  baptism 
ot  the  spirit  was  the  only  one  essential,  and  necessary  to  effect 
regMieration.  it  would  follow,  that  the  apostles  had  rot  been 
regenerated  'til  after  Christ's  ascension  to  heaven;  as  this  bap- 


91 

^sm  was  only  then  p''omised  them,  and  hence,  that  their  faith 
previo  isly,  had  Jcan  a  vain  imaguiation.  Bat  this  is  not  true, 
for  taey  be-'oie  followed  Christ  in  the  regeneration.  "Then 
ansA^erei  Peter  and  sad  unto  him,  behold,  we  have  forsaken 
all,  and  folio, ved  thee  ;  what  shall  we  have  thereioie  ?  And 
Jesus  said  unto  them,  verily  I  say  unto  you,  thatyewhuh 
hive  followed  me  m  the  reg  "nerati  .'n,  when  the  Son  of  man 
shad  sit  in  the  throne  of  his  g!>)ry,  ye  al-o  shad  sit  upon  tv\  elve 
thrones,  jn  Iging  the  tw  dve  tribes  of  Israel  "  Matth.  19, 
27,  iS  T  lis  cjnvei'sation  between  Christ  and  his  disciples, 
a-i  the  order  of  the  history  shews,  took  p'ace  befure  his  death 
an  1  resdrrecUin.  They  who  had  followed  him  in  regenera- 
tion were  the  a oost'es  ;  hence,  th.w  must  have  been  previous- 
ly ;'egen:^rated.  Waereas  this  text  beyond  all  dispute  proves, 
that  the  ap  )stles  were  already  reg?;nerated,  how  inconsistent 
it  mast  be,  to  applv  th  •  test  Acts  I,  5,  'ye  shall  be  baptised 
with  the  [1  >!y  Gi>st,  not  many  days  hence,'  to  the  doctrine 
of  regeneration  ! 

M  •.  M  -^ays,  "  We  will  secondly  view  the  testimony  and 
conduct  of  !hi  apostles  aft  r  Chrisr's  resurrection,  under  the 
p/esent  dispensation  Peter  said,  '  R'^pent  and  be  baptised, 
in  the  name  of  the  L>rd  Jenis,  for  the  remi-^sion  ot  sin,  and 
y-"  shall  receive  the  gift  of  ihe  Holy  GUiSt.'  Acts  ii,  h8. 
H-^'c  the  receiving  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  distinct  from  their 
b*ng  bapt'sed  with  water  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ. 
W  II  *h  evidcndy  proves  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  connec- 
tel  with,  nor  conta  nel  in,  nor  conveyed  by  it,  but  was  recei- 
ved imnj  liately  from  G)  1  himseU',  unconnected  with  the  wa- 
ter. The  case  of  the  people  of  Samaria  wdl  fully  establish 
this  point.  See  Acts  viii,  I'i.  It  is  said,  'They  were  baj.ti- 
sc  1  both  mni  and  vvomen  '  But  they  did  not  receive  the  Ho- 
Iv  Gh)st  iintil  some  time  afterwards  ;  not  until  Peter  and 
John  went  down  from  Jerusalem,  prayed  with,  and  laid  their 
hands  anon  thvn.  Sjc  verses  15,  16,  17.  Also,  the  case  of 
the  twelve  disciples  whom  Paul  found  at  Ephesus,  clear- 
ly proves  this  p  dnt ;  for  they  were  baptised  twice  with  water, 
1.  with  John's,  th  mi  with  the  Christian  baptism,  before  they 
received  the  Ho'y  Ghost.  S^'C  Ads  xix,  1,  7.  From  the 
above  qioti^d  scriptures,  it  is  manifest  and  clear,  that  there  is 
a  scriptural  baptism  spoken  of  in  the  word  of  God,  entirely 
separate  and  distin-^t  from  the  water.  This  is  the  one  true 
es-;ential  baptism,  which  alone  is  able  to  regenerate  the  soul, 
cleanse  it  from  sin.  and  prepare  it  for  heaven  ;  and  water  bap- 
tism is  a  visibli"  sign  or  e  nblem  of  th-s  internal  grace.  " 

Answer*    There  are  the  ordinary  gifts  of  the  spirit,  which 


95 

arc  necessary  to  effect  repentance,  and  also,  the  extraordinary, 
whk'h  uianiiested  thcmfecives  in  nlilacu!(U^  tperiii.c<i  s.  In 
the  api'Stolic  age,  niii'uculous  gitis  were  (On  nu,n.  ]V,y  c  ppo- 
nent  has  not  proved,  thai  the  gilt  ol  the  Htl}  Ghosi,  v\liich 
the  Jews  wen;  to  receive  alter  being  ba}.tisid  was  an  ordiiia- 
ry  gift  to  clTect  regeneration,  V\  hen  the  questicn  is  pot, 
whereby  should  they  receive  the  icmission  tor  sins  ?  the  an- 
swer is,  they  should  repent,  and  be  baptised  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  ;  as  the  text  says  "repent  and  be  baptised  tor  the  re- 
mission of  sins.  "  Thus  the  pardon  lor  sins,  \\ as  the  resilt  of 
repeutance,  and  baptism.  It  docs  not  sa\ ,  and  }e  sliah  re- 
ceive die  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  lor  the  remission  ol  sins-,  be- 
cause this  was  an  extraordinaiy  giit,  v^hich  they  weie  to  re- 
ceive after  they  had  pardon  for  sins,  through  repentance  and 
baptism.  • 

As  it  respects  the  people  of  Samaria,  it  is  to  be  observed, 
that  they  were  not  only  baptised,  but  they  also  ''bclitvcd  Phil- 
ip, preaching  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  o!  God.  and 
tho  name  of  Jesus  Christ,''  Acts  viii,  12  ;  before  they  recei- 
ved the  Holy  Ghost,  by  the  hands  oi  Peter  and  J(din.  If 
they  were  believers  before,  they  nuist  have  been  regenerated 
before  P.!ter  and  John  came  to  them.  For  "he  thatbelievtth, 
and  is  bapt'sed  shall  be  saved  : '' — ''v  hosoever  believeth  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is  born  of  God. "  1  John  5,  1.  But  h<  w 
did  they  receive  the  H  >ly  Ghost?  By  the  laying  on  of  the 
apostles' h'lnds.  "Then  laid  they  their  hands  en  them,  and 
they  received  the  Holy  Ghost. "  v  17.  The  Hcly  Ghost 
came  upon  the  people  by  the  laying  of  the  apostles'  hands,  in 
a  V  isible,  external  manner.  In  verse  16,  it  is  said  the  Ho'y 
Ghost  as  yet  was  fallen  upon  none  of  them  ;  which  indicates 
a  visible  descent.  Hence  it  is  said,  v.  18.  that  "when  Simon 
saw  that  through  laying  on  of  the  apostles'  hands  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  given,  he  offered  them  money,  saying,  give  me  al- 
so th  s  power,  that  on  w  homsoever  I  lay  hands,  he  mav  re- 
ceive the  Holy  Ghost."  v.  19  Had  this  gift  ol  the  Holy 
Ghost,  been  an  invisible  operation  in  the  heai  t,  to  effect  regen- 
eration, how  could  Simon  have  seen  it,  and  thus  be  induced 
to  offer  money,  to  obtain  the  power  to  convey  this  pift  by  (he 
laying  on  of  his  hands  ?  Blind  n  ust  be  the  eye.  that  cannot 
discover,  that  the  gifts,  w  hi'  h  'he  apostlf  s  conveyed  by  the 
laying  of  th-'ir  hands,  were  visibh-  and  m.iraculous.  Hence 
how  erroneous  is  therefore,  Mr.  M's  assertion,  that  this  bap- 
tism is  an  internal  baptism  to  regenerate  the  sou',  when  the 
very  texts,  he  has  produced  to  prove  it  stare  him  in  his  face, 
and  loudly  proclaim,  that  it  was  an  external,  visible,  miracuv 


loas  descent  of  the  spirit,  which  was  even  conveyed  by  the  ex- 
ternal act  of  t!ie  laying  on  ot  the  aposiles'  hands  !  Is  it  possi- 
ble,  that  any  person  could  be  blinded  with  such  barefaced  so- 
phistry ? 

Neither  does  the  case  of  the  twelve  disclp'es.  Acts  19, 17; 
wiiorn  Sr,  Paul  found  a  Ephesus  prove,  that  the  baptism  of 
the  spirit  th^y  received,  effected  their  regenei a  ;On.  For  we 
ai"e  infoi-med,  that  -'when  Paul  laid  his  hands  upon  them,  the 
Holy  Gi  >st  came  on  th  m  ;  and  they  spake  with  tongue?,  and 
p  )|)hesied.  "  v.  6  Thus  v\e  see.  they  received  the  Hv  ly 
G  I'Jst  by  the  impasltion  of  St.  Paul's  hands  in  a  miraculous 
m.inner  ;  for  they  spake  with  tongues,  and  pnphesied  Now 
if  my  opponent  will  apn'y  this  to  his  argument,  he  must  also 
prove,  that  Christians  at  this  tin)e  receive  the  Holy  Ghost,  by 
the  laying  on  oi  hands  in  such  a  manner,  as  to  enable  them  to 
speak  with  tongues,  and  prophesy.  But  as  this  is  out  ol  the 
qj  'Stion,  his  argmient  is  without  a  foundation. 

x\s  it  respects  C>rneUu-;,  and  the  n.cn  who  were  with  him, 
A  "ts  X,  44,  48  ;  \\  hich  case  my  opponent  has  also  introdu- 
ced, I  simply  answer,  they  were  the  miraculous  gifts  ot  the 
spirit,  they  received,  beiore  they  were  baptised  withvater. 
For  they  were  heard  '  to  spe:;k  with  tonguf  s  and  magnify 
G 'd.  "  V.  46.  But  suppose,  the  baptisn)  with  water  is  not 
essential,  an!  this  baptisn)  of  th  •  spirit,  they  received  separate- 
ly, supplied  every  thing  that  was  necessary,  was  it  not  astcn- 
ishing,  that  they  should  have  received  the  non  essential  btp- 
tism  with  water  ?  It  would  be  abominable  to  think,  that  they 
should  have  been  baptised  merely  for  the  sake  of  a  useless  cus- 
tom. It  is  evident,  that  the  gilts  of  the  spirit,  which  they  had 
received  were  miraeu'ous,  and  that  other  gifts  were  given  by 
the  b  '.ptism  with  water.  To  work  miracles  is  one  thing,  and 
to  receive  the  spirit,  so  as  to  be  regenerated,  is  an  other. 

Ml-.  M.  proceeds,  p.  43,  '*I  will  ju'-t  (observe  in  the  last 
place,  that  some  aie  of  opinion,  that  the  baptism  of  the  spirit 
ineludes  on'y  th  >  miracu'ous  gifts,  and  not  the  common  and 
ordinary  operations  of  the  sp'rit  in  the  woik  of  regeneration. 
Therefore,  wlien  the  miraculous  sifts  ceased,  the  baptism  of 
the  spirit  was  likewise  done  away.  To  which  I  \'\  ould  observe, 
that  the  seriptu-es.  in  several  places,  clearly  refute  this  idea. 
Bit  I  think  St.  ParTs  words  to  the  Corinthians,  wi'l  be  suf- 
fr.'.ient.  See  1  Cor.  xii.  18  'For  by  one  spirit  are  we  a1!  bap- 
tised into  one  bodv,  whether  we  be  -Jews  or  Gentiles,  bond  or 
free;  and  have  been  all  made  to  drink  of  one  spirit  '  Hence 
St.  Pa'd  evid-^ntlv  proves  that  the  baptism  o'  the  spirit,  in- 
cludes the  common  gifts  in  the  work  of  regeneration,  as  well 


97 

as  miraculous  gifts.  For  we  know  that  the  whole  body  of 
Cliiistiaiis  ilid  not  receive  the  niiiacuious  gifts  ;  but  Puuib.MS, 
*By  one  spirit,  we  are  all  baptised  into  one  bod\ ,'  &c.  This 
agrees  with  what  our  Lord  said  to  his  diseiples  Mat  xxviii, 
20  'And  lo,  I  will  be  with  you  always,  cvt  n  unto  the  end  of 
the  world;'  which  was  not  in  his  bodily  presence,  but  in  his 
spiritual  presence  This  then,  is  the  one  true  essential  baptisn), 
which  alone  is  sufficient  to  regenerate  the  sou!,  cleanse  it  from 
sin,  and  p'-epare  it  for  those  pui-e  and  spiritual  de'ights  at  God's 
right  hand  ah  we.  Without  v\  hich,  a'l  our  water  baptism  |  wM 
avail  notliing,  as  to  the  salvation  o!  the  soul ;  we  shall  still  >on- 
tinue  servants  of  sin,  and  will  at  last  eternally  perish,  just  as 
though  we  had  never  been  baptised  with  water." 


:f.  I'he  folJowing  fragments  are  selected  from  seme  mann.icripts,  written 
by  the  rev.  Philip  Heukel,  residing  in  Tennessee,  and  loho  is  the  Au- 
thor's brother. 

Upon  reading  a  pamphlet,  called  strictures  on  a  piece,  written  bv  Mr, 
Da\id  Menkel,  entitled  Heavenly  flood  of  regeneration,  or  a  tiealise  on  ho- 
ly baptism  :  by  Mr  Josejh  Moore,  I  deem  it  my  duty  to  make  some  ob- 
servations on  this  subject.  If  only,  it  concerned  David  Henkel,  !  should 
have  paid  no  attention  to  it.  But  since  the  woro  of  God,  and  the  sacred 
institution  of  bapli-^m,  ha-  e  been  attacked  by  misconstruction,  it  seems  (oo 
important  to  pass  over  it  in  silence.  Whereas  1  iinderstand,  that  Mr.  Mcore 
is  a  minister  of  the  Methodist  connexion,  and  as  the  Methodists  in  sun- 
dry places  hold  out  the  idea,  thai  their  doctrines  do  not  essentially  differ 
from  tho-e  of  the  Lutheraas  by  which  means  they  succeed  in  proselyting 
some  Lutherans,  I  deem  it  my  duty  to  unaiask  this  imposition,  by  shewing 
how  Mr.   M    has  condemnetl  the  doctiine  of  Doct.   Luthei . 

1.  Mr.  M  pagi"  5,  denies  tha;  we  are  regenerated  by  the  baptism,  per- 
formed with  water.  ]n  order  to  prove,  that  baptism  is  not  the  means  of  re- 
generation, he  quotes  Eph  4",  22,  24  ;  and  Col  1,  13,  14  This  indeed, 
is  a  strange  method  of  proving.  I  mi'j.ht  with  equal  piopiiety  say,  that  a 
child  is  not  a  child,  ani!  that  it  must  seek  to  be  born  such  .  because  hi>  fa- 
ther said,  you  must  walk  sir  cumspecilv.  Although,  the  apostle  admonish- 
ed the  Ephesians.  'To  put  off  concerning  the  former  conversation,  the  old 
man,  &c.'  but  he  does  not  say,  lor  the  puipose  of  being  regenerated.  He 
did  not  direct  this  admonition  to  umegenerated  persons,  which  is  evident 
from  ch    2,   1      13 

The  text  in  Col.  1,  13.  14,  reads  thus  :  "Who  hath  delivered  us  from 
the  power  of  darknesa,  anc;  hath  transla'ed  us  into  the  kin?/:om*)f  his  clear 
Son  .  in  whom  we  have  redemption  through  his  blood,  even  the  lorgive* 
ness  o^'  sins  "  This  text  proves,  that  the  Colossians  ha<i  already  been  i  egen- 
erated  ;  and  says  not  one  word  for,  nor  against  baptism. 

Neither  does  the  text,  Rom.  12,  2,  prove  that  regeneration  is  not  effec- 
ted by  baptism.  It  leads  thus  :  '  .\nd  be  not  conforme(i  to  this  world  .  but 
be  yc  traiisformed  by  the  renewing  of  your  minvl,  that  ye  may  prove  what 
is  that  j;ood,  and  aicepiable,  and  perfect  will  of  God  '  It  is  to  be  remember- 
ed, that  the  apostle  addressed  Christians,  as  the  1st  verse  plainly  shews,  'I 
be'.eeih  you  therefore  brethren,  by  the  meicies  of  God,  that  ye  present 
voiir  bodies  a  livin-  sacritice,  holv,  ac  eptable  unto  God,  ivhich  is  your  lep 

N  ^ 


93 


Answer.  It  is  evident,  that  the  baptism  of  the  spirit  con- 
sisic  lin  miraculous  eft'usions  ;  hence,  as  miiacles  have  ceased, 
this  baptism  does  no  more  exist.  That  the  scriptures  in  se- 
veral places,  c'eai'iy  relate  this  idea,  is  an  arbitrary,  incorrect 
assertion.     Why  did  my  opponent,  not  point  out  those  several 


sonable  service.'  Astonishing,  that  the  apostle  shoiili^  have  railed  a  body 
ofunvegenerated  heathens,  or  infidel  Jews  his  brethren  !  This  text  con- 
firnis  the  following  words  of  Doct  Luthei  :  -A  child  must  not  act  that  he 
may  he  boin,  but  because  he  is  boi  n."  So  the  Romans  were  to  act,  not  to 
be  born  ;    but  because  they  were  already  born  anew. 

2.  Mr.  M.  proceeds,  "Now  i'  it  not  evident,  that  if  regeneiaticn  implies 
such  a  deep  and  ladical  change  of  heart,  that  water  bapii-m,  nor  any  thing 
external  can  effect  :f  Can  any  thing  short  of  the  mighty  powei  of  God,  or 
operative  ene  gies'of  that,  almighty  spirit,  which  raised  the  lo;iy  of  Christ 
from  the  dead-  and  bicatheJ  into  the  nostrils  of  the  first  man,  and  he  became 
a  li\  in^  soul,  effect  such  a  change?  such  a  death  to  sin  and  new  birth  uuto 
righteousness  .■■  1  think  it  is  eviaenl  that  it  cannot  "  But  1  wish  to  know 
who  denies,  that  it  req  lires  tiie  povvei  of  God  to  effect  regeneration?  Or 
who  says,  that  a  mere  eKiernal  thing  can  effect  it  ?  i  do  not  see.  that  ei- 
ther Luther,  or  David   Henkel,  denies  the  first,  nor  affirms  the  latter. 

3  He  says,  p.  6,  "Water  is  a  natural  thing,  therefore  cannot  produce  a 
spiritual  birth  "  This  every  person  knows  But  is  baptism  simple  water 
only  ^  Or,  tloes  it  consist  of  something  mo' e  important  .-  Mr.  M.  it  seems, 
calls  the  institution  of  Christ  a  nat'iral  thing,  and  speaks  as  if  D.  Henkel 
had  institute.!  water  baptism.  See  p  9.  ."36.  But  lie  ought  to  consider, 
that  he  is  here  treating  God's  own  institution  with  the  utmost  contempt. 
Remember  Vjr.  M.  you  do  not  viiify  D,  H.  but  almighty  God  !  How 
da!e  a  sinful  mortal  say,  that  ho!v  baptism,  the  positive  institution  of  Jesus 
Christ,  is  a  natural  thing  !  We  know  that  water  is  a  natural  thmg.  But 
baptism  as  Luther  says,  is  not  simple  water  <mly,  but  with  the  word  of  God 
it  constitutes  a  Chiistian  baptism,  and  gracious  water  of  life,  &c.  It  is  per- 
formed in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  never- 
theless iVlr.  M.  calls  baptism  a  natural  thing.  He  also  considers  baptism  a 
corruptible  thing  when  he  says  "Thus  we  are  born  again  fiom  above,  by  a 
spi'itualbirth  ;  not  of  corruptible  things,  such  as  silver  anri  gold,  [nor  by 
the  natuial  water  in  baptism)  but  bv  the  preciou.5  blood  of  Christ,  &c." 
What  a  burlesque  this  is  upon  Ch;  ist's  own  institution  1  lo  compare  it  with 
corruptible  thiu^^s,  such  as  gold,  and  silve?  I  Neither  Luther,  nor  D.  H. 
say,  that  we  are  re^^enerated  by  natural  water  Mr.  M.  knows  to  the  con- 
trary, for  they  tell  him  again,  and  again,  that  baptism  is  not  simple  water 
only,  but  the  word  of  God  and  his  name  connected  with  it.  Surely  Mr.  .M . 
argues,  as  if  D  H.  wis  the  author  of  baptism  ;  if  so,  I  would  agree  with 
him,  thattit  would  be  a  cor -uptible  thing.  But  he  is  not  the  author  ;  but 
Jesus  Ch'ist,  who  in-tituted  no  corruptible  sacraments.  Now  Mr.  M.  it 
devolves  on  vou  to  prove,  that  the  word  of  God,  which  is  the  essence  in 
baptism  is  conuptib'e;  and  luilil  you  do  it,  we  shall  consider  you  a  scoffer 
of  holy  thiiii^s,  and  an  enemy  to  our  blessed  Saviour. 

4.  Mr.  iVl.  p.  6,  compaies  the  spiritual  with  the  natural  birth  And  p. 
7,  he  says  xvf  haA'e  to  go  thiougb  the  painful  travail  of  repentance,  before 
we  obtain  deliverance.  Most  sublime  logick  !  I  never  knew,  that  the 
child,  that  is  bo«nhas  to  uudei  go  the  travail  of  the  [nother  Neither  has 
he  proved,  that  repentance  is  a  travail.  Kvcry  naan  of  common  scn.5ej  ea- 
sily perceives  the  absurdity  of  this  assertion. 


9^ 


places  ?  The  text,  1  Cor.  xii,  13  ;  <^-Tor  bv  one  spirit  are  we 
;i!:  hiptise.l  into  one  bofly,"  &:c.  does  not  prove,  that  they 
\vere  legenerated  by  this  baptism.     There  is  nothing  said  in 


5.  He  attempts  to  prove,  that  baptism  cannot  effect  reoene'ation  ;  be- 
cause Paul  thanked  God,  thai  he  baptised  m-ne  ol  the  Corialhians,  but 
Crispus  and  Gaius.  and  the  hoti.-ehold  of  Stephanus  ;  and  because  he  was 
not  sent  to  baptise,  but  to  p  eacb  i^e  iTos;jel,  See  p.  8.  Why  does  not 
Ml'  M.  tell  Us  the  reason  why  8t  Paul  thanked  God.  tliat  he  baplibCd  so 
few  a;  Corinth  ?  In  v.  15  (1  Co\ .  1.  15)  the  reason  is  as^iuneu  .  viz. 
•'l.est  any  should  say,  that  I  had  baptised  in  mine  own  name  "  Thu->  it 
appears,  that  some  of"  the  Corinthians  miuht  have  prostituted  baptism  to 
Support  a  party  ;  provided,  the  apostle  had  baptised  a  goodly  numher,  which 
is  the  reason  he  thanked  God,  that  he  baptised  but  .so  tew.  Who  could 
pos  ihlv  inier  from  this,  that  the  apostle  ci.n-ideref;  baptism  as  an  unimpor- 
tant institution,  when  he  so  hi'>h!y  exiolsit  in  hi-  epistles  to  the  Romans, 
Galatians,  anil  Ephe-ians  :  See  Rom.  6 — Gal  3 — Kph.  5  AUliough  St. 
f* aul  himselt'.  di.i  not  bap'.ise  all  the  Corinthians  ;  yet,  what  reason  have  ue 
to  believe  tlial  thev  were  not  baj.tised  ?  And  though  he  was  sent  to  preach 
the  gospel  ;  yet  he  no  wheie  -p'Mks  tonlemjjtiblv  ot  baptism  ;  oi'  like  Air, 
IM  compares  it  with  corrupiiLle  things.  A^ain,  we  Hnd  in  sundry  texts, 
that  Paul  himselt  baptised  people,  in  other  places  :  tbi  insUnce  see  Acts  c. 
16,   ch.  19 

Mr.  ,M.  argues  very  incorrectly,  when  he  concludes,  that  if  Paul  had 
baptised  them  with  water,  it  might  have  led  ihem  to  .have  depended  upon 
what  he  had  done  for  -alvation.  St  Paul  con  esses,  that  he  had  baptised 
Crispus  and  Ga'us  ;  and  also  the  household  of  Stephanus.  Now  if  Mr.  Ms 
conclusion  be  correct,  then  St  Paul  acted  like  a  deceiver,  anJ  a  villain 
for  'lapiizin;^  Crispus,  and  Gaius,  and  the  housetiold  of  Stejihanus  ;  thus 
lea  in^  thrm  to  depend  upon,  what  he  had  dtn^  for  salvation  !  Why  did 
Paul  not  lead  those  poor  people  out  of  this  dan ;j,erous  situation  '  vVhy 
leave  them  tiius  delu'led  i  But  who,  except  he  be  a  deist,  can  possihlv  be- 
lieve this  to  be  St.  Paul's  cha'acter  ?  As  St.  Paul  was  a  faithful  apostle  of 
Christ,  the  reason  as.signeii  by  Mr.   .M.  musi  be  'idiculous. 

6.  Mr  .M  fal^elv  accuses  D.  Henkel,  with  having  w  itten,  that  baptism 
is  regeneration  itself.  D.  H.  sai<i  no  such  thing,  but  he  indeed,  has  proven, 
that  baptism  is  the  ordinary  means  ot  re;^ene»aiion. 

7  .Mr.  .VI  has  spoken  most  shamefully  of  baptism,  when  p.  32,  he  com- 
pares it  to  a  broken  scatf  He  savs,  "And  I  could  ventuie  to  say,  that  if 
JNlr,  i4.  and  his  people  depend  on  it  (baptism)  or  salva  ion,  they  will  de- 
pend on  a  broken  staff."  Wl.at  I  is  the  holy  institu'ion  of  Jesus  Christ 
like  a  broken  staff'  We  wi-h  .Mr  M.  thai  you  would  pro\  e  this  by  the 
scriptures.  O  1  horiid  beyond  degree,  to  co  npare  God's  own  institution, 
to  a  broken  staff  !  Poor  !  pvouJ  !  sell-impo  tant,  sinful  dust,  repent  of 
your  vile,  abominable  wo-k  ;  flee  to  the  Saviour  of  the  woild,  lest  ete.nal 
damnation  be  vonr  portion  ;  fo  you  have  not  simply  spoken  against  D.  H. 
but  you  have  spoken  igainst  Jehovah  himself,  by  comparing  hi*  own  insti- 
tution to  a  broken  -taff  ! 

8.  VVhilst  the  M  'hodist  connexion  do  not  bring  Mr.  Moore  to  an  ac- 
count, *brhis  misrep  e-entations,  anu  the  disrespectful  l-ingnage,  he  has  em- 
ployed to  degiade  the  institution  of  holy  baptism,  we  shall  consider  them  aa 
«onniving  at  his  conduct,  and  foes  to  this  blessed  institution 

Th£  reader's  /tumble  servant 

PHILIP  HENKEX 


100 

it,  nor  its  context,  with  respect  to  regeneration.  Why  intro- 
duce a  text,  which  says  nothing  ol"  regeneration  ?  Tins  is  an- 
other erroneous  assertion  :  "we  know  that  the  whole  body  of 
Ch  istians  did  noi  receive  miraculous  gifts.  "  The  contrary  is 
not  only  evident,  from  the  general  practice  in  the  apostle's 
days  in  conveying  miraculous  gifts  by  the  laying  on  ot  their 
hands  ;  but  also,  the  context  of  this  pa8>age  shews,  that  the 
Corinthian  church  generally  had  such  gifts,  ''^ow  there  are 
diversities  of  gilts,  but  the  same  spirit.  And  there  are  difier- 
ences  of  administrations,  but  ihe  same  Lord.  And  there  aie 
diversities  of  operations,  but  it  is  ihe  same  God  which  work- 
eth  all  in  all.  But  the  manifestation  of  the  spirit  is  given  to 
every  man  to  profit  withal.  For  to  one  is  given  by  the  spirit 
the  word  oi'  wisdom  ;  to  an  ither  the  word  of  know  ledge  by 
the  same  spirit ;  to  another  faith  by  the  same  spii  it  ;  to  an- 
other the  iiifts  of  healing  by  the  same  spirit  ;  to  another  the 
working  of  miracles  ;  to  another  prophecy  ;  to  another  dis- 
cerning  of  spii-its  ;  to  another  divers  kinds  of  tongues  ;  to  an- 
other the  interpretation  of  tongues  :  but  all  these  worketh 
that  one  and  the  selt  same  spirit,  diviriing  to  every  n^an  sev- 
erally as  he  will.  For  as  the  body  is  one,  and  hath  n.'any 
miMubers,  and  all  the  members  of  that  one  boi'y,  being  many, 
are  one  body:  so  also  is  Christ.  For  by  one  spirit  are  v.  e 
all  baptised  into  one  body,  whether  we  be  the  Jev^s  or  Gen- 
ii es,  whether  we  be  bond  or  free  ;  and  have  been  all  made 
to  drink  into  one  spirit.  For  the  body  is  not  one  member, 
but  many.  If  the  foot  shall  say,  Becau-  e  I  am  not  the  hand, 
I  am  not  of  th-'  body  ;  is  it  thereiore  not  of  ihe  body  >  &c. '' 
verse  6  - 15.  Without  any  comment,  this  context  shi  ws  to  e- 
very  intelligent  reader,  that  the  Corinthians  as  a  Christian 
church,  had  those  extraordinary  gifts  of  the  spint  in  com- 
mon. See  also  eh.  14.  The  text  Matth.  28,  20,  does  not 
say  any  thing  with  respect  to  the  baptism  of  the  spirit ;  but 
it  simply  contains  a  gracious  promise,  of  Christ's  perpetual 
presence.  We  do  not  believe,  that  Christ  is  visibly  present 
with  us,  and  are  therefore,  not  of  the  opinion,  that  vac  can  see 
him,  as  some  pretend  at  the  eamp-mcetings.  Nevertheless, 
we  believe  him  really,  invisibly  present.  As  Mr.  M.  has 
not  produced  any  ai-guments  relative  to  our  Savioui'.^  pres- 
ence, and  as  it  is  not  the  subject  in  question  ;  I  therefore  do 
not  de'm  it  expedient,  to  say  more  upon  it  in  this  little  work. 
It  is  a  subject  of  vast  importance,  and  cannot  be  handled  very 
|?riefly  ;  hence  it  would  require  a  separate  volume. 


101 

Supplement  to  section  XL 

AHhou gh  my  opponent  has  quoted  sundry  texts  to  prove, 
that  tliere  was  a  bapt  sm  uf  the  spirit  separate  ironi  that  vviiieh 
is  performed  witli  water  ;  (this  is  not  denied  ;)  niveitiieless  it 
is  by  no  means  pertinent  to  the  subject  in  que>tiun,  because  he 
has  no  where  proved,  that  this  baptism  has  ever  eflected  le- 
generation.  It  has  been  sufficiently  proved,  that  the  aposties 
received  this  promised  baptism  oi  the  spirit  on  the  day  ol  Pen- 
tecost, whose  descent  was  signidized  by  a  sound  from  heaven 
as  of  a  mighty  rushing  wind,  anci  accompanied  by  the  phe- 
nomenon of  cloven  tongues  as  ot  fire.  Immediate!}  witiu  ut 
any  previous  ?tudy,  they  were  gifted  to  speak  the  difterent  lan- 
guages, which  then  were  prevalent  ;  and  thus  the  gospel  could 
easily,  in  a  short  time  be  promulgated  amoiig  all  nations. 
Oa;-  bbssed  Saviour's  prediction,  John  7,  §8,  39,  was  aihO 
fulfilled.  "Ht  that  believeth  on  me,  as  the  scripture  hath 
said,  out  of  his  beliy  shall  flow  rivers  of  living  water.  (But 
this  he  spake  of  the  spirit,  which  they  that  believe  on  liim 
should  receive  :  for  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  yet  given  ;  be- 
cause that  Jesus  was  not  yet  glorified.  "  For  they  by  the  lay- 
ing on  of  their  hands  healed  the  sick  ;  they  cast  out  devils,  and 
raised  up  the  dead.  It  has  also  been  shewn,  that  Christians 
in  common,  during  the  primitive  age,  received  miracuicus 
gifts  of  the  spirit  by  the  imposiiion  of  the  apostles'  hands  ;  for 
they  could  speak  with  tongues,  and  prophesy.  In  this  nsan- 
nsr  the  divine  authenticity  of  the  religion  of  Jesus  was  estab* 
lished,  and  confirmed.  What  would  it  have  availed,  if  the 
apostles  had  preached  the  crucifierl  Jesus,  to  the  world,  which 
was  a  new  doctrine,  if  they  could  not  have  proved  it  by  a  tes. 
timony  greater  than  their  own  ?  Who  would  have  believed 
thern  ?  H'-nce  ''God  a' so  bore  them  witness,  both  with 
signs,  and  wonders,  and  with  divers  miracles,  and  gifts  ofthe 
Holy  Hhost,  according  to  his  own  will  "  Heb.  2,  4,  From 
al!  this  we  learn,  that  such  a  miraculou'^  efl^usioti  ^^as  called 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  this  baptism  cciised. 
^Charity  never  faileth  :  but  whether  therebc  prophecies,  they 
shal'  fail  ;  whether  there  be  tonfyues  ;  they  shall  cea?e  ; 
whether  there  be  knowledge,  it  shall  vanish  away.'  1  Cor» 
13.  8.  In  the  prcceedingj  chapter,  the  apostle  had  discoursed 
upon  the  divers,  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Corinthian  (thurch, 
ani  then  concludes,  by  shewing  them  a  more  excellent  way  ; 
and  in  this  he  extols  charity  above  a'l  ;  because  tongues,  and 
prophr'cies  shall  fail,  whilst  she  'ike  the  green  of  heaven,  shall 
live  and  reign  for  ever*    For  after  the  Christian  Religion  was 


102 

sul&ciently  attested  by  signs,  and  wonders,  their  continuation 
be\;im  '  nnne._-essaiy»  Wiat  need  is  there,  to  continue  prov- 
ing by  signs,  and  wonders,  a  religion  which  ah-eady  has  been 
in.alUbly  established  ?  It  is  sufficient,  to  convince  any  per- 
son >f  its  truth,  by  exhibiting  the  original  testimonies. 

Such  as  pretend  to  have  received  this  baptism  of  the  spirit, 
the  same  as  the  apostles,  and  primitive  Christians,  let  them 
maiiirest  th'Jse  mii-aculous  operitions.  Let  them  speak  the 
langiages  of  the  1  tie  "en  t  nations  ;  predict  futute  events  ;  heal 
the  sick,  by  the  imp:>sition  of  hands,  and  raise  the  dead.  But 
whilst  we  see  no  su  -h  works,  all  the  pretensions  ol  having  re- 
©eived  this  baptism,  are  nothing  but  idle  dreams. 


SECTION  XTI. 

•This  section  contains    a   reply  to  snnrlry  objections,   which  are  alleged  a- 
gainst  the  doctrine  :  that  baptism  is  the  ordinary  means  of  regeneration. 

Whereas  there  are  sundry  objections  alleged  against  this  doc- 
irine,  not  only  by  my  opponent  but  also  by  others,  which  are 
ca  culated  to  perplex  the  minds  of  many,  1  consider  it  neces- 
sary to  make  the  following  statement  of  the  same,  with  my 
answers  : 

Ohje  ;tion  I.  Jesus  Christ  is  our  only  Saviour.  Hence  if 
we  believe,  that  we  are  saved  by  baptism,  we  make  that  a 
Saviour,  wh  ch  is  absurd. 

Answer.  When  we  teach  that  we  are  saved  by  baptism, 
we  understand  nothing  else,  than  that  Christ  saves  us  ;  for  he 
has  instituted  it,  and  it  is  the  means  in  his  own  hands,  to  ef- 
fect our  regeneration.  According  to  this  objection,  it  would 
be  impossible,  for  God  to  employ  any  means  in  the  salvation 
0''a  sinner  ;  lest  the  means  be  made  a  God,  and  a  Saviour. 
H'Mice  we  must  dt^ny,  that  preaching  the  gospel  is  a  means, 
lest  the  samt^  may  be  made  a  God.  This  must  be  a  wonder- 
ful phi'oso;)hy,  that  God  cannot  save,  or  effect  any  thing  by 
means  ;  unless  we  believe,  that  thereby  they  become  a  Sa- 
viour, and  a  Gjd  !  This  objection  is  every  whit  as  absurd,  as 
if  I  would  say  :  because  an  author  employs  his  pen,  in  wri- 
ting i  book  ;  therefore  the  pen  is  the  author  ! 

OSje'tion  II  The  seriptures  der;la»*e,  that  we  are  regene- 
rated by  the  word  of  God,  as  St,  Peter  says,  1  Epist.  1,  28 ; 


103 

•Being  born  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorrupti- 
ble.  L)>  the  vvoi-d  o!  God,  whieh  live  h  luid  abideth  lor  ever.' 
If  the  word  of  God,  as  this  text  si:tlicieiitl}  Uidicatet,  be  the 
means,  how  then  ean  baptisni  be  ihe  ordinary  n  cans  >  Hence 
one  may  be  regenerated  by  the  \\ord,  withoi.t  bi-ptitni. 

Answer  It  is  reatlily  a(  milted,  that  the  \\oit.  o;  God  is 
an  auxiliary  means.  But  this  does  not  piove,  that  LaptiMn 
is  not  the  ordinary  means  ;  nor  that  v^e  n  ay  be  regenerated 
as  well  without,  as  with  it  :  un'ess  it  cculti  be  evincer,  tlyt  it 
was  impossible  for  an  ordinary  means  to  have  its  auxiliaiy* 
Without  the  word  of  God,  we  v\ould  knov%  nothing  ol  bap- 
tism, nor  of  its  desif»n,  and  value.  By  the  word  we  are  it  d 
to  baptism,  and  by  it  we  discover  the  div  ne  promises,  which 
are  therein  sealed  ;  so  that  it  may  not  appear  to  us  an  unn  ea- 
ning  ceremony.  Had  it  not  been  lor  the  v^ord,  v\e  sheuld 
never  have  been  baptised  ourselves,  nor  would  we  have  our 
offsprings  dedicated  to  God  by  this  sacran  ent.  ^c  w  a.^  the 
word  leads  us  to  baptism,  and  teaches  us  how  to  use  it  ;  hence 
it  is  therefore,  also  necessarily  a  meiius  of  regeneration.  For 
that  which  leads  me  to  the  washing  of  ri  generation,  must  be 
an  auxiliary  means  of  regeneration.  Since  the  word  shews 
me  the  divine  promises  in  baptism  ;  so  that  I  learn  to  believe 
them,  and  be  saved  ;  lience  in  this  respect  the  word  is  the 
means  ;  but  this  does  not  exclude,  but  rather  includes  baptism. 

Obj  III.  If  baptism  was  the  ordinary  means  of  grace, 
we  should  see  more  good  fruits  in  those,  v\  ho  are  baptised  than 
what  we  do.  Many  of  them  live  as  wickedly  as  those,  who 
are  not  baptised.  If  baptism  be  the  washing  of  regeneiation, 
why  then  are  not  all  the  baptised  regenerated  ?  This  indi- 
cates, that  baptism  is  not  connected  with  any  divine  virtue. 

Answer.  This  objection  is  popular,  and  with  many  it  pas- 
ses for  an  unanswerable  argument.  In  one  of  the  preceeding 
sections,  it  has  b^^en  answered  ;  yet,  I  shall  add  the  following  : 

1.  Many  whose  children  have  been  baptised,  bestow  no  la- 
bour upon  them,  when  they  arrive  at  the  ;ige  of  maturity,  to 
instruct  them  with  respect  to  the  use,  and  design  ol  baptism  ; 
hence,  as  the  good  seed  receives  no  nurishment,  how  can  it 
be  expected  to  prosper  ?  Suppose  an  husbandman  had  plant- 
ed a  good  seed,  but  neglected  its  cultivation  ;  noxious  weeds 
overrun  it,  and  prevent  its  fertility,  could  we  conclude,  that  he 
spake  the  language  of  reason,  if  he  vilified  the  seed,  or  denied 
its  principle  of  procreation  ?  We  would  say,  he  is  beside 
himself.  Althousih  we  do  not  hear  sober  men  vilify  the  seed, 
they  neglected  to  cuUivate  ;  but  many  after  neglecting  the  reli- 
gious education  of  their  children^  and  finding  them  graceless-; 


104 

they  like  men  bereft  of  the  use  of  their  reason,  deny  the  divine 
virtue  of  baptism. 

2.  Theie  are  bat  Tew  who  believe,  that  baptsm  is  the  w  ash- 
ing of  regeneration.  The  clergy  of  the  must  oi  thr  Protestant 
denjmmations,  are  agreed  in  calling  ii  an  emblem,  and  repre- 
senting it  as  not  essential  to  salvation  ;  and  hus  siik  it  as  low 
as  possible,  in  the  estimation  ol  their  hearers.  Although,  the 
Papists  admit  it  to  be  a  washing  of  regcnci  ation  ;  but  as  they 
ais)  maintain,  that  go  id  works  arr  nt:cessary,  tnjustily  us  be- 
fore G>d  it  IS  evidtni,  thar  they  notw  ith^iandin^,  doubt  bap- 
tism to  be  a  p.M'fect  (aver  of  regene;  ati  n.  For  if  baptism  be 
a  perfect  washing  of  regeneration,  why  may  1  nut  always 
have  access  to  it,  when  1  have  fallen  ?  what  need  have  I  to 
be  saved  by  legal  works  ? 

Now  let  us  suppose,  the  great  majority  of  ministers,  of  all 
denominati  'ns  were  agreed,  to  delame  ihe  divine  authenticity 
of  the  sacred  scriptures,  by  representing  them  to  their  heareis 
as  not  essentially  necessary  to  be  read  ;  and  that  it  would  be 
even  dangerous  to  depend  on  them,  as  a  rule  of  taith,  and  con- 
duet  :  would  it  be  rational  to  conclude,  that  the  scriptures 
were  no  more  than  a  shadow,  because  many  people  have  them 
in  their  possessions,  and  are  not  benefited  ?  Would  not  every 
man  of  discernment  say,  no  marvel  that  the  people  are  not 
benefitted  by  the  scriptures  ;  when  the  clergy,  by  whom  they 
are  led,  inspire  them  with  the  belief,  thai  they  are  useless  ;  so 
that  they  become  dilatory  in  perusing  them,  and  regardless 
with  I'cspect  to  their  promises,  and  precepts.  \\  h.t  is  the 
p'>pu'ar  doctrine  with  respect  to  baptism  ?  The  learned  de- 
grade baptism  with  polished  v. ords,  in  a  systematical  foim  ; 
whilst  the  unlearned  vilify  the  same,  in  vulgar  language.  Af- 
ter having  done  all,  to  degrade  this  institution  ;  and  to  pluek 
from  the  minds  of  the  people,  every  sacred  promise,  which 
God  stipulated  to  them  in  it  ;  they  then  are  the  first,  \^  ho  \\  ith 
an  affected  sanctity,  set  up  the  melancholy  complaint  :  theie 
are  but  few  goorl  fruits  to  be  discovered,  in  many  of  those, 
who  are  baptised  ! 

Obj  IV.  It  is  a  dangerous  doctrine  to  teach  people,  that 
baptism  is  the  means  of  regeneration,  lest  they  will  think  :  if 
thev  onU'  be  baptised,  they  are  quite  safe  ;  hence,  they  will 
indulge  themselves  in  sin,  without  restraint. 

Answer.  Aa^rceable  to  this  objeetinn,  it  would  also  be 
dangerous  to  instruct  the  people,  that  God  is  good  to  all,  and 
that  he  loves  his  enemies  ;  lest  they  should  think,  because  he 
is  so  good,  and  kind,  he  will  not  puni'^h  us  for  our  crimes  ; 
hence  vvc  mav  continue  in  sin.     In  short  there  is  nothing,  by 


105 

which  God  manifests  his  Love,  and  Goodness  towards  sin- 
ners, but  what  n)ay  be  liable  to  such  an  iibuse,  and  against 
which  such  an  objection  n)ay  be  alleged.  W^hat  is  the  clifier- 
ence  whether  sinners  bt  heve  the  goodness,  and  mercy  ol  God 
are  manifested  in  baptism,  or  by  any  other  means?  for  such 
as  are  determined  to  abuse  the  same  will  do  it,  at  the  peril  of 
their  own  souls. 

Obj.  V.  I'  baptism  be  the  ordinary  means  of  regenera- 
tion, then  it  must  follow,  that  all  those,  who  are  not  baptised 
will  be  damned.  There  are  many  thousands,  whoareunbap- 
tised  ;  now,  to  suppose  all  such  to  be  lost,  is  extremely  un- 
charitable. 

Answer.  In  this  way  I  might  also  prove,  that  it  is  very 
uncharitable  to  teach,  that  whosoever  does  not  believe  in  Je- 
sus Christ  shall  be  damned  ;  because  there  are  many  thou- 
sands, who  do  not  believe,  and  many  more  have  never  heard 
his  name.  What  Christian  would  presume  to  say,  that  faith 
in  Jesus  Christ,  is  not  essential  to  salvation  ;  because  it  would 
be  uncharitable  to  suppose  all  such  as  lost,  who  are  destitute  of 
it  ?  In  what  manner  God  deals  w  -th  the  heathens,  and  others, 
who  are  unavoidably  bereft  of  the  gospel,  and  the  sacraments; 
so  as  to  extend  his  mercy,  and  benevolence  to  them  all ;  so  that 
they  shall  be  without  an  excuse,  if  numbers  of  them  be  not 
saved,  is  a  subject,  on  which  I  cannot  say  any  thing  in  this  little 
work.     This  only  would  I  observe,  that  whereas  God  is  im- 

1)artial,  he  knows  how  to  devise  means  in  abundance,  by  wh'ch 
le  may  shew  the  heathens  his  salvation.  Whatever  dispensa- 
tion he  may  have  ordered  to  save  heathens  through  Christ, 
does  by  no  means  interfere  with  the  dispensation,  under  VAhich 
we  live.  We  cannot  expect  to  be  saved  in  any  other  way^ 
than  the  one,  that  is  revealed  to  us  by  the  scriptures. 


SECTION    XIII. 

This  section  contains  a  short  address  to  Mr.  Moore, 
To  Mr.  Joseph  Mooie. 

Reverend  Sir ! 

I  have  concluded  my  reply  to  your  strictures  on  my  treatise. 
I  believe  none  of  your  arguments  against  my  treatise,  have 

Q 


t06 

been  passed  over  in  silence.  You  are  at  liberty  to  write  some 
strictures  on  this  reply,  and  if  you  can  point  out  errors  in  it,  I 
shall  thank  you.  It  is  known  to  you,  that  my  treatise  on  bap- 
tism, is  not  written  against  any  particular  society,  of  people 
nor  individual ;  hence  you  had  no  just  provocation,  to  commence 
an  individual  controversy.  You  might  have  published  your 
sentiments  on  the  subject,  without  any  personal  reflections. 
But  since  you  have  made  the  beginning,  I  hope  you  will  not 
be  offended  at  the  plainness  of  speech,  which  is  found  in  this 
reply.  Sir!  your  strictures  have  not  offended  me;  though, 
they  have  put  me  to  the  disagreeable  task  of  replying.  Should 
you  decline  writing  any  more  on  this  subject,  I  hope  you,  or 
some  of  your  brethren,  will  meet  me  in  the  presence  of  a  pub- 
lick  assembly,  for  the  purpose  of  debating  it,  more  minutely  in 
a  friendly  manner.  If  you  agree  to  do  so,  you  will  please  to 
let  me  know  it ;  so  that  we  may  mutually  appoint  the  time,  and 
place  of  meeting ;  and  also,  devise  an  equitable  pl&nofcon 
ducting  the  controversy. 


107 

A    FEW 

FRAGMENTS  ON  THE  DOCTRINE 

OP 

JUSTIFICATION. 


FRAGMENT   I. 

A  brief,  contrasted  view  of  the  divine  Law,  and  Gospe'l, 

To  form  accurate  views  of  the  doctrine  of  justification,  it 
is  necessary  to  understand  the  distinction  between  the  law  and 
the  gospel. 

Whereas  God  had  imposed  various  laws  upon  the  Israelitesj 
I  must  observe  that  the  law,  which  I  intend  to  contrast  with 
the  gospel,  is  the  moral,  called  the  decalogue,  which  the  Lord 
had  engraven  on  two  tables  of  stone,  and  delivered  unto  Moses. 
It  is  called  moral,  because  it  is  a  perfect  rule  of  moral  rectitude. 
Hence,  it  is  not  possible  to  commit  a  sin ;  unless  it  be  a  devia- 
tion from  this  law:  4br  sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law.' 
1  John  §,  4. 

The  sum  and  substance  of  this  law,  is  love.  *Thou  shalt 
love  the  Lord  thy  God  \\  ith  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul, 
and  with  all  thy  mind.  This  is  the  first  and  great  con  mand- 
ment.  And  the  second  is  like  unto  it.  Thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbour  as  thyself  On  these  two  commandments  hang  all 
the  law  and  the  prophets.'  Matth.  22,  37-40.  And  St.  Paul— 
*for  he  that  loveth  another  hath  fulfilled  the  law.  Foj-  this. 
Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery.  Thou  shalt  not  kill,  Thou 
shalt  not  steal,  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness.  Thou  shalt 
not  covet ;  and  if  there  be  any  other  commandment,  it  is  brief- 
ly comprehended  in  this  saying,  namely,  Thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbour  as  thyself  Love  worketh  no  ill  to  his  neighbour: 
therefore  love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law.'  Rom.  13,  8-10.  This 
is  evident,  for  he  that  loved  his  neighbour  as  himself,  would 
not  seduce  his  wife  ;  nor  kill ;  nor  take  from  him  his  property 
by  fraud,  or  violence ;  nor  bear  false  witness  against  him  ;  nor 
even  covet  any  thing  that  is  his :  and  it  he  loved  God  with  all 


108 

his  heart,  he  would  not  cherish  an  idol ;  nor  profane  his  sa- 
cred nam  '.  H/nct^  all  passages,  whether  they  be  in  the  Old 
or  New  Testament,  which  forbid  any  vice,  or  command  any 
virtue  ;  or,  threaten  the  former  with  punishment,  and  pjom- 
ise  a  reward  to  the  latter,  belong  to  the  law  ;  either  as  a  prin- 
cipal pan,  or  an  illustration  thereof. 

A'though,  the  ceremonial  law  was  abolished  under  the  new 
dispensation  ;  yet,  the  moral  law  remains  undiminished,  with 
respect  lo  all  its  moral  precepts  ;  for  nothing  can  possibly  re- 
lease any  creature,  from  the  obligation  of  love  towards  the  cre- 
ator, &c.  Lave  being  the  falfil.nent  of  this  law,  is  and  must 
be  perpetual ;  for  "^charity  never  faileth.'  1  Cor.  13.  8.  Our 
blessed  Saviour  testifies,  'Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  des- 
troy the  law,  or  the  prophets  :  I  am  not  come  to  destroy,  but 
to  fulfil  F  )r  vein!y  I  say  unto  you,  Till  heaven  and  earth 
pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law, 
till  all  be  fulfilled.  Matth.  5,  17,  18.  Those  words  suffi- 
ciently indicate  the  perpetuity  of  the  law. 

The  law  is  spiritual,  Rom.  7,  14  ;  hence  it  does  not  simply 
require  our  external  conduct  to  harmonize  with  it ;  but  also, 
that  the  motives  of  the  heart  be  unsullied.  It  is  said,  'That 
whosoever  looketh  on  a  woman  to  lust  after  her,  hath  com- 
mitted adultery  with  her  already  in  his  heai  t,'  Matth.  S,  28. 
Which  shews,  that  the  law  requires  the  heart  to  be  in  con- 
ibrmity  with  it  ;  for  if  the  sinful  lust  were  not  engendered  in 
the  heart,  the  action  would  never  be  committed.  Hence,  all 
inordinate  desires  are  prohibited.  If  man's  heart,  and  con- 
duct were  perfectly  conibnuable  to  the  law,  there  would  not 
be  the  least  cause  for  condemnation  ;  he  would  have  the  di- 
vine approbation,  and  a  conscience  pure,  and  serene,  and  thus 
enjoy  the  foliriry  ol  heaven.  Hence,  the  law  has  the  promise 
of  life  annexed.  This  is  evident,  from  Christ's  reply  to  the 
lawver.  'A  certain  lawyer  stood  up,  and  tempted  hmi,  saying, 
Master,  what  shall  I  d  >  to  inherit  eternal  life  ?  He  said  un- 
to him.  What  is  written  in  the  law  ?  how  readest  thou  ?  And 
he  answering,  said,  Thon  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  Godv\ith 
all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  strength, 
and  witli  all  thy  mind  ;  and  thy  neighbour  as  thyself.  And 
he  said  unto  him,  Thou  hast  answered  right :  This  do,  and 
thou  shalt  live.'  Luke  10,  25  28.  This  text  does  not  simply 
prove,  that  the  doers  of  the  law  shall  preserve  their  lives  from 
the  execution  of  the  civil  magistrate  ;  but  that  they  shall  in- 
herit eternal  life  ;  for  the  question  was  not,  what  a  man  shall 
do  to  enjoy  civil  hapniness  ;  but  what  he  shall  do  to  inherit 
/eternal  life*       Christ  certainly  answered,  agreeable  to  tlie 


109 

question*  St.  Paul  says,  'Moses  describetli tlie righteousness 
which  is  of  the  law,  That  the  man  which  doeth  tlu-se  things 
shall  live  by  them.'  Rom.  10,  o — comp.  Levit,  18,  5  A- 
gain — 'And  the  law  is  not  of"  iaith  :  hut,  The  man  that  doeth 
them  shall  live  in  them.'  Gal.  S,  12 — 'And  the  conm:and- 
ment,  which  luas  ordained  to  life,  1  found  to  be  unto  death.' 
R)m  7,10.  These  texts  undeniably  prove,  that  the  doers  of 
the  law  shall  inherit  life. 

God  did  not  give  his  law  in  vain,  for  it  must  be  fulfilled. 
Such  as  do  not  obey  all  its  precepts,  must  fulfil  it  by  suttering 
its  penalty.  Hence,  it  is  written,  'Cursed  is  every  one  that 
continueth  not  in  all  things  which  are  written  in  the  book  of 
the  law  to  do  them.'     Gal    3,  10. 

The  gospel  is  also  the  word  of  God  ;  yet  it  is  to  be  distin- 
guished from  the  law.  The  word  translated  gospel,  is  tvay. 
lyextov,  in  the  original.  It  is  derived  from  sv,  happily,  and 
ayysjita,  a  proclaiming.  Hence,  it  signifies  good  news,  or 
happy  tidings.  T!ius  it  is  said, '  How  beautilul  are  the  teet  of 
them  that  preach  the  gospel  of  peace,  and  bring  glad  tidings 
of  good  things.'  R^m  10,  15— conip  Isa.  52,  7 — ch  61.1. 
*Fear  not:  for,  behold,  I  bring  you  good  tidings  of  great  joy, 
which  shall  be  to  ai!  people  For  unto  you  is  born  this  day, 
in  the  city  of  David,  a  Saviour,  which  is  Ciirist  the  Lord.' 
Luke  2,  10,  11. 

The  gospel  as  contrasted  with  the  law,  implies  that  joyful 
proclamation,  which  is  founded  on  the  divine  promise  of  a  Sa- 
viour. Thus  it  is  said,  the  gospel  was  preached  unto  Abraham. 
*And  the  scripture,  foreseeing  that  God  would  justify  the  hea- 
then through  faith,  preached  before  the  gospel  unto  Abraham, 
saying,  in  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed.'  Gal.  8,  8  Christ 
according  to  his  human  nature,  is  Abraham's  seed  ;  and  fiom 
V.  14-16,  it  appears  was  the  foundation  of  the  gospel,  whose 
day  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see,  and  saw  it  by  faith,  and  was 
glad,  John  8,  56 ;  and  in  whom  not  only  th»'  Jews,  but  also, 
the  Gentiles  should  be  blessed.  Thus  the  gospel  was  announ- 
ced before  Christ's  incarnation,  and  the  blessings  pron  ised, 
were  prefigurated  by  many  types,  under  the  Mosaic  dispensa- 
tion. Bat  under  the  new,  the  types  have  vanished;  because 
the  substance  appeared:  for  the  Son  of  God  is  incarnate,  he 
suffered,  and  died  ;  and  revived  ;  and  was  taken  up  into  glory  ; 
a»id  now  the  gospel  brings  to  light,  li'e  and  immortality. 
2  Tim  1,  10.  To  preach  the  gospel,  is  to  declare  pardon, 
life,  and  salvation  through  the  merits  of  Chiist,  to  guilty,  and 
condemned  men.  Hence  all  passages,  whether  in  the  old,  or 
pew  testament,  which  contain  a  promise  of  a  Saviour,  of  par- 


110 

don  for  sin  ;  and  all  concomitant  blessings,  belong  to  the  gos- 
pel. 

The  sacraments  of  baptism,  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  are 
appendages  ot  the  gospel  ;  for  where  in  the  law,  do  we  find 
their  institution  ?  They  are  administered  by  the  ministry  of 
the  gospel.     Hence  are  not  moral  duties  ;  but  means  of  grace. 

We  do  not  find  a  vestige  of  the  gospel,  in  the  works  of 
creation  ;  whereas  the  'a»v  of  natuic,  does  not  essentially  dif- 
fer from  the  one  that  is  written  ;  hence  the  heathens  who 
have  not  the  scriptures  ;  yet  they  have  the  law  written  in 
their  hearts,  their  conscience  also  bearing  witness,  and  their 
thoughts  the  mean  wnile  accusing  or  else  excusing  one  another. 
Rim.  2.  15.  Had  man  not  fallen,  the  revelation  ol"  nature 
would  have  been  sufficient.  Since  the  gospel  proposes  par- 
don for  sin.  and  a  restoration  to  happiness,  guilty,  and  fallen 
creatures  are  presupposed.  Now  if  the  gospel,  the  same  as 
the  !aw,  were  stamped  upon  man's  heart,  or  revealed  by  the 
works  of  nature,  it  would  at  once  shew,  that  God  had  created 
man  sinful  and  wretched.  Bat  as  this  cannot  be  supposed, it 
is  evident  that  neither  man  in  his  pristine  state  ot  rectitude, 
nor  holy  angels  knew  any  thing  of  the  gospel.  It  was  a  bles- 
sed  mjstery,  enshrined  in  the  bosom  of  Jehovah,  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world  ;  and  since  the  fall  of  man,  it  has 
been  made  known  by  a  particular  revelation.  These  are 
things,  which  angels  desire  to  look  into,  1  Pet.  1,  12.  Eph, 
3,9-11. 

The  law  requires  love  ;  the  gospel  faith — 'The  just  shall 
live  by  faith  ;  and  the  law  is  not  of  faith' — Gal.  S,  11,  12; 
hence  love,  and  faith  are  as  different  as  the  law  and  gospel. 
They  therefore,  ought  not  to  be  confounded.  The  la\y,  al- 
though it  requires  love  ;  yet  gives  the  sinner  no  inclination  to 
love  ;  the  gospel  does  not  simply  require  faith ;  but  it  also,  re- 
presents the  testimony  and  promise  ;  and  imparts  the  power 
to  embrace  the  same  :  for  its  ministry  is  that  of  the  spirit, 
and  of  life.  By  the  law  sin  is  revealed,  and  made  exceed- 
ingly sinful,  Rom.  7,  7,  18  ;  the  gospel  shews,  where  sin  a- 
bounds,  grace  much  more  abounds.  Rom.  5,  20.  The  law 
reveals  the  wrath  of  God  from  heaven  against  all  ungodliness 
of  men,  it  is  his  hammer  to  break  rocks  into  pieces,  Jer.  28, 
29  ;  the  gospel  declares,  that  'God  sent  not  his  Son  into  the 
world  to  condemn  the  world  ;  but  that  the  world  through- 
him  might  be  saved  '  John  §,  17.  The  law  is  the  key  to 
bind  the  culprit  ;  the  gospel  is  the  key  to  loose,  and  set  him 
at  liberty.  Matth.  16,  19.  The  law  engenders  the  spirit  of 
bondage  i  the  gospel  the  spirit  of  adoption,    GaU  4,  21  -31.- 


Ill 

The  law  roars  in  the  conscience  of  the  sinner,  like  the  thun 
tiers  on  mount  Sinai,  that  he  through  fear  seems  to  hear  no- 
thing else  ;  the  gospel  represents  the  blood  ol  Jesus,  as  spea- 
king louder  ;  and  brings  the  spirit  of  adoption  into  the  heart, 
crying,  Abba,  Father,  which  cry  is  so  empbatical,  that  it 
penetrates  the  heavens  ;  'and  God  hears  it  out  of  his  tem- 
ple.' Ps.  18,  6.  The  ministration  of  the  law,  is  that  c.f  con- 
demnation ;  for  it  is  the  letter  that  kills,  2  Cor.  3,  6,  7  ;  it 
shews  the  sinner  the  silence  and  darkness  of  the  grave  ;  the 
portals  of  hell  ;  and  causes  painful  anticipations  ot  the  smoke 
of  his  future  torments,  ascending  for  ever,  and  ever  :  the  min- 
istration of  the  gospel ,  is  that  of  life  ;  the  power  of  God  unto 
salvation,  Rom.  1,  16  ;  it  represents  Jesus  as  the  bright, 
shining  herald,  risen  from  the  dead  ;  and  having  the  keys  of 
hell  and  of  death,  Apoc.  1,  18  ;  and  declares  authoritatively, 
*I  will  ransom  them  from  the  pov^er  of  the  grave  ;  I  will  re- 
deem them  from  death  :  O  death,  I  will  be  thy  plagues  ;  O 
grave,  I  will  be  thy  destruction.'  Hos  18,  14.  It  unlocks 
the  gates  of  paradise,  and  exalts  ♦he  sinner  out  of  hell,  into 
heaven.  The  ministration  of  the  law  is  glorious  ;  for  it  re- 
veals God's  justice  ;  it  also,  had  an  external  glory  on  mount 
Sinai  ;  for  the  mount  smoked  ;  the  thunders  roared  ;  and  the 
noise  of  the  trumpet  was  heard  ;  so  that  the  Israelites  trem- 
bled, Exod.  19,  16— eh.  20.  18,  19  ;  the  gospel  is  more  glo- 
rious, as  it  represents  the  filial  God  head  manifested  in  the 
flesh,  fulfilling  divine  justice,  and  expiring  on  mount  Calvary, 
amidst  a  combination  of  wonders  :  such  as  the  trembling  of 
the  earth,  and  the  bursting  of  rocks,  and  the  sun's  total  eclipse. 
Not  only,  did  the  external  glories  on  Calvary,  exceed  those 
on  Sinai  ;  but  there  w  as  also,  a  superior  display  of  moral  ex- 
cellence in  the  sufferings  of  Jesus,  who  is  not  merely  a  man  ; 
but  also,  Jehovah,  an  infinite,  eternal  personage  ;  hence  his 
tears,  groans,  and  prayers  circumscribed  time,  and  eternity  ; 
and  the  flowing  of  his  blood,  is  superior  to  the  legal  demands; 
and  causes  all  heaven  to  lavish  with  gifts  to  man  :  so  that  the 
scenes  of  the  gospel ,  eclipse  the  glory  of  the  law,  like  the  bright- 
ness of  the  sun,  the  mild  rays  of  the  moon  :  or,  as  the  apostle 
expresses  it,  ^even  that  which  was  made  glorious  had  no  glo- 
ry in  this  respect,  by  reason  of  the  glory  that  excelleth.' 
2  Cor.  8,  10» 

IMPROVEMENT. 

It  is  a  very  important  blessing  to  understand  the  distinction 
between  the  law,  and  the  gospel.    Without  observing  it  in 


112 

the  perusal  of  the  sacred  scriptures,  they  will  appear  like  a 
chaos  shrouded  in  darkness.  By  this  blessed  clue,  tliej  ap- 
pear  full  ot  harmony,  and  acquire  a  high  degree  of  elucidation. 
Not  observing  it,  is  the  reason,  why  so  many  people  read, 
without  acquiring  knowledge  ;  and  why  many  preach,  w  ith- 
out  rendering  their  hearers  happy  ;  as  it  is  necessary  rightly 
to  divide  the  word  or"  truth.  2  Tmi.  2,  IS.  Wuhout  observ- 
ing this  distinction,  the  inhde!  Jews,  and  many  called  Chris- 
tians, read  the  scriptures  ;  yet  their  minds  remain  blmded, 
not  kno»ving  that  the  penal  demands  of  the  law  received  their 
consummation  in  Christ  ;  tor  they  look  not  beyond  it  ;  and  as 
the  apostle  says,  'when  they  read  Moses  the  vail  is  upon  their 
heart.'  2  Cor  8,  13  - 15.  We  frequently  hear  people  ex- 
claim, it  is  almost  impossible  to  be  saved  ;  as  no  man  can  live 
agreeable  to  all  the  precepts  that  are  contained  in  the  scrip- 
tures Such  mingle  the  law,  with  the  gospel,  and  consider 
them  both  as  the  same  ;  otherwise  they  would  not  draw  such 
a  groundless  conclusion  It  is  evident,  that  no  sinner  can 
keep  the  law  ;  hence  let  him  look  lor  its  fulfilment  in  Christ, 
who  is  the  founHation  of  the  gospel. 

The  gospt  1  being  joyful  news  ;  or,  a  happy  proclamation 
from  heaven  of  peace  on  earth,  and  good-wdl  towards  man, 
Luke  2,  14  ;  hence  whatever  doctrine  may  be  announced, 
which  is  not  joyful,  nor  calculated  to  console  the  terrified,  can- 
not be  the  gospel.  It  must  either  be  the  law  ;  or,  an  amal- 
gam of  the  law  and  gospel  ;  or,  a  doctrine  invented  by  some 
wild  enthusiast. 

To  preach  that  Christ  has  only  redeemed  the  smaller  num- 
ber of  mankind,  that  the  majority  are  predestinated  to  perish 
in  their  sins,  without  the  offer  of  >ufficient  grace  to  prevent  it, 
cannot  be  the  gospel  ;  because  it  is  not  a  joyful,  but  the  most 
terrifick  annunciation.  Upon  hearing  it,  sinners  must  ration- 
ally conclude,  that  if  the  majority  be  reprobated,  there  is  a 
greater  probability  of  being  units  of  this  unhappy  number,  than 
of  the  partially  favoured  few  ;  as  it  is  absurd,  for  every  one  to 
hope,  when  but  a  few  are  destined  for  endless  felicity.  The 
intention  of  the  gospel  ministry,  is  to  cause  sinners  to  believe 
in  Christ,  and  by  believing  lobe  saved.  Whenever  a  person 
is  exhorted  to  believe,  he  must  first  have  a  promise  stipulated  ; 
as  it  is  nonsense,  otherwise  to  require  faith.  Now  how  would 
it  be  possible  for  any  sinner  to  believe,  that  he  is  one  of  the  re- 
deemed, if  the  minister  could  not  testify,  that  it  is  the  will  of 
God  that  all  should  be  saved,  and  come  to  the  knowledge  of 
the  truth  ?  1  Tim.  2.  4.  The  scriptures  do  not  contain  a 
catalogue  of  the  names  of  the  elect ;  hence,  how  is  it  possible 


113 

for  any  man  to  find  in  them  a  promise  of  salvation  for  his  per- 
son ,  provided  the  doctrine  ofa  partial  reden.ptiuii  be  cornet  ? 
It  IS  in  vain  to  s  ly,  that  we  shall  be  able  to  ascertain,  that  \\ie 
aw  of  the  elect,  whenever  we  have  pxpeiienced  tht  woik  of 
regeneration  in  our  hearts,  b)^  the  ettectual  operations  oi  the 
spirit  :  for  it'  so,  the  sinner  would  be  saved  before  he  believed  ; 
and  the  experience  of  this  salvation  would  becon)ean  t  vidcuce 
for  him  to  believe.  Thi-  scriptures  deciart ,  that  a  man  is  jus- 
tified by  taith,  Rom  3,  28  ;  and  that  u  thout  faith  it  is  im- 
possible to  please  God.  Heb.  11,  6.  Now  if  I  must  have 
experienced  the  work  of  regeneiation,  in  order  to  have  an  in- 
ternal te'^timony  ;  so  th.it  I  may  believe,  then  I  must  ht  justi- 
fied, whilst  an  unbeliever,  and  as  such  please  God,  which  is 
unscriptural.  It  would  also  lollow,  that  the  prtaching  oi  tie 
gospel  is  not  an  eft'e  tual  means  to  kindle  taith  in  sinners  ;  that 
an  extraordinary  intlu-  nee  of  the  spirit  must  be  added,  ot  which 
the  word  of  God  is  destitute.  This  i-  nothing  short  of  fanati- 
cism. How  can  he  be  said  to  preach  the  gospel,  or  joyful 
news  to  sinners,  when  he  is  not  able  to  inform  them,  whether 
they  are  of  the  number  of  the  redeemed  ;  and  even  declares, 
that  they  never  ean  find  it  out,  until  the  spirit  reveals  more  to 
them,  than  they  can  ascertain  by  hearing  the  mere  -jutvv  ard 
preaching  of  the  gospel  ?  But  the  gospel  is  to  be  preached 
unto  every  creature  ;  hence  it  must  contain  a  premise  to  all  ; 
for  Christ  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all,  1  Tim.  2,  6  Every 
sinner  thereiore,  when  he  hears  the  go'^pel,  may  rationally 
conclude,  that  if  all  be  redeemed,  he  p  ust  be  one  ot  then'  ; 
for  without  him,  all  would  not  be  all.  Thus  he  may  by  hea<- 
ring  the  gospel  be  enabled  to  believe. 


FRAGMENT  II. 

It  is  shewn  that  there  is  a  two-fold  justification  :  the  one,  in  the  sight  of 
^  God,  and  the  other,  before  men. 

Without  this  distinction,  the  subject  cannot  properly  be  il- 
lustrated. There  are  sundry  texts,  which  exclude  all  good 
works  with  respect  to  our  justification  ;  w  hilst  others  include 
such  as  necessary.  This  perplexes  some  minds,  and  to  recon- 
cilf"  this  apparent  contrariety,  they  conclude  that  both  faith,  und 
good  works  are  necessary  to  justify  a  aiaja  m  the  sight  of  God. 

P 


ii'i 

Nevertheless,  this  does  not  harmonize  those  difterent  texts, 
Fvn*  such  a  te.vt  as  liiis — 'therefore  we  conclutle  tiiata  iiiat;  is 
justified  by  faith  without  the  deeds  of  the  law' — Ri.m.  ^,20 — 
does  not. admit  the  least  addition  ot  works  in  the  article  o  »  ur 
justiiieaiion.  Buf  as  the  scriptures  speaic  O;  ajustitiiati.'n  in 
tiie  sight  of  men,  as  well  as  in  the  sight  ol  God,  it  is  not  diffi- 
cult to  d  nc  »ver  a  harmony  between  those  apparent  repugnant 
texts.     Tiiis  is  elucidated  by  the  following  specimens  : 

1  '  Therctore  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  there  shall  no  flesh  be 
justified  in  his  (God's)  sight :  for  by  the  law  is  the  knowledge 
o  sin.  R)m.  3,  ^0,  Zl.  This  text  speaks  of  a  justificauvn 
in  the  sight  ot  God,  which  positively  excludes  all  legal  works. 

2.  'F  -r  if  Abiaham  were  jastilied  by  w^orks,  he  hath  where- 
of t)  gl  >ry  ;  but  not  before  God.'  cb.  4,  2.  From  this  text 
it  may  'ie  concluded  that  there  is  a  justification  by  works  ;  but 
n  t  before  God  ;  hence  it  must  be  before  men.  As  the  justifi- 
cation bi'iore  God  is  without  works,  even  so  the  justification 
before  men,  cannot  be  otherwise,  but  by  works.  It  is  said 
*God  was  manifest  in  the  tlcsh,  justified  in  the  spirit,  seen  of 
angels,  &e.'  1  Tim.  .S,  16.  Christ  was  justified  in  the  spir't- 
bvUnotinthe  siglUof  God  ;  because  he  knew  his  son  as  just, 
an!  holy  from  eternity.  Through  the  spirit  he  wrought  mira- 
Cie^,  Matth.  1??,  28  ;  which  were  cal.'ulated  to  justify  hm  us 
tiie  Messiah,  ui  the  sight  of  men.  He  therefore  s.  ys,  If  1  do 
ii-y.  the  v/orks  oi  my  Father,  beiiev.-  me  not.  But  it  1  do, 
though  ye  believe  not  me,  believe  the  works  ;  that  ye  may 
know,  ;ind  believe  that  the  Father  is  in  me.  and  I  in  hinu' 
John  10,  37,88.  Again,  'By  thy  words  thou  shalt  be  justi- 
fied, and  by  thy  vv  yyds  thnu  shaU  be  condemned  '  Matth.  12, 
37.  Now  we  know,  that  in  the  sight  of  God  words  are  not 
necessary,  either  to  justi'y,  or  condemn  us  ;  becau?e  he  know  s 
all  se  rets  of  the  heart  be'bre  words  are  uttered.  But  that 
men  may  be  informed  of  the  intt  ntion  of  the  heart,  words  are 
necessary  ;  and  by  which  we  either  stand  justified,  or  else, 
convicted  of  an  error. 

g.  It  has  been  supposed  by  some  that  St.  James,,  w  hen  he 
insists  upon  good  works,  (ch.  2)  as  necessary,  unto  jusilfiea- 
tion,  contradicted  St.  Paul,  who  excludes  such.  But  St. 
James  does  not  allude  to  the  same  justification.  *Yea,  a  man 
may  say.  Thou  hast  taith.  and  I  have  works  ;  sh  w  me  thy 
faith  without  thy  works,  and  1  will  shew  thee  my  faith  h\  my 
woi-ks  '  eh.'  2,  18.  As  this  text  speaks  of  shew  ing  one's 
faithby  works,  it  must  be  a  manifestation  of  our  justification; 
liMi  *e  such  as  is  in  the  sight  of  men.  For  we  need  not  to 
shew  otir  faith  to. God,  because  he  is  omniscient,    Afeaiii— 


115 

<Was  not  A^iraham  our  fathei  justifictl  by  works,  wlien  tie 
ha  1  oii"i-r.'(i  is..a  liis  son  upon  tho  altar  r'  v.  *21.  Al»ialiain, 
li)  yielding  oncilie'nce  to  the  divine  nuindatetd  vtici  im-  s«jl  1- 
s*aac,  could  not  aiiude  to  a  justitication  beiorc  God.  Abiaiiam 
was  circunieised  pievious  to  thr  birth  of  I;-aac,  vshich  is  evi- 
dent trom  the  sci  iplures  ;  (see  Gen.  ch.  17)  lience  beloie  i.e 
could  offer  him  upon  the  atai-.  'So\\  Abraham  '  leceiveci  the 
sign  of  eircumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  ot  the  laah 
which  he  had  yet  being  uncireumciged.'  Rom.  4,  11.  Hen.  e, 
as  Abraham  was  circumcised  before  he  oHered  his  son  Isaac 
upon  the  altar,  and  as  circumcision  w  as  a  stal  ol  the  righteous- 
ness of  the  faith  whicfi  he  had,  it  is  evident,  that  he  was  justi- 
fied  in  the  sight  of  God,  before  he  was  about  to  sacrifice  hiS 
son.  As  he  was  justified  \n  God's  sight",  before  he  perioimed 
this  work,  it  must  be  concluded,  that  he  thereby  shewed  him- 
self as  just  in  the  sight  of  men  This  is  confirmed  by  St.  Fcad 
*F  >r  if  Abraham  were  justified  by  works,  he  hath  iuhc>e<J  to 
g'ory  ;  but  not  before  Ged.'  Rom.  4,2.  Since  Abialiam 
might  glory  by  his  works  ;  yet  not  before  God,  the  conclusion 
is,  that  he  might  have  a  glory  in  the  sight  of  men. 

When  St.  Paul  teaches,  that  we  are  justified  by  faith,  ex- 
clusive o  al'!  \e^d\  woiks,  he  docs  not  by  it  mean  an  assent  to 
any  common  truih  •  such  as,  that  God  created  the  world,  or 
the  existence  of  angels  ;  but  a  faith  in  Christ,  rctasameie 
c  eator,  but  as  a  saviour  of  sinners  ;  or,  as  he  calls  it  'faith  in 
his  blood.'  Rom.  S,  25.  But  the  faith  which  St.  James  de- 
nies as  sufficient  to  justify  one,  is  not  this  faith  ;  but  the  faith, 
that  there  is  one  God,  which  he  also,  represents  as  dead 
without  w^orks.  'Thou  belie  vest  that  there  is  one  God  ;  thou 
doest  well  :  the  devils  aKo  believe  and  tremble.  But  wilt 
thou  know,  O  vain  man,  that  faith  without  works  is  dead  ?  v» 
19,  20.  What  does  St  James  call  a  dead  faith  ?  Not  the 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  as  a  saviour  :  for  he  says  'My  brethren, 
have  not  t'le  faith  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Lor  d  of  glory, 
with  respect  of  persons.'  v.  1.  This  shews,  that  the  faith  in 
J^sus  Christ  has  no  respect  to  persons  ;  hence  it  cannot  be 
dead ,  but  living  But  the  faith,  that  there  is  orie  God.  in  itself 
is  dead  Why  so?  The  truth  that  on'y  one  God  exists,  in- 
cHides  no  promise  of  salvation.  Hence  simply  tp  believe,  this, 
cannot  engender  a  living  principle.  Unh  ss  a  promise  be 
made,  the  creature  does  not  (  T  mean  the  guilty)  expect  a  fa- 
vour, and  without  which  he  has  no  inducement  to  love. 
Whereas  the  timth,  that  there  is  a  saviour  includes  a  promise  of 
lite,  and  salvation  ;  the  sinner  that  bf^ieves  this  must  rfjoi-^e  ; 
and  he  has  an  in  hieement  to  love  God  ;  hence  it  must  bt^caus^ 
<>f  this  promise,  be  a  living  faiih. 


116 

To  prove  that  the  faith  that  there  is  one  God,  is  insufficient" 
to  justify,  the  apostle  exhibits  the  example  oi  devils,  \^ho  are 
neither  just,  nor  happy  ;  notwithstanding  they  btlieve  this 
truth.  According  to  the  interpretation  which  the  Jew  s  gave 
oi  the  idolatrous  worship  of  the  heathens,  and  confirneci  !  y 
St.  Paul,  1  Oor.  10,  19  21  ;  it  appears  they  invoked  devils* 
T.ie  heathens  did  not  consider  their  Gods  as  supreme  bemgs, 
bat  as  interior  mediators,  called  Saiixovia  ;  nevertheltss,  tin  se 
Sdkfiovia  were  devils.  He  must  be  an  apostate  spirit,  that  le- 
q  I  ires  divine  honours  from  men  ;  or  will  accept  i;f  such  with- 
out reproving  those,  by  whom  they  are  offered  Those  de- 
vils that  were  honoured  by  the  heathens  as  Gods,  do  noi  like 
thsra  believe  the  doctrine  o'  polytheism  ;  but  are  convinced 
that  there  is  but  nnc  God  ;  and  in  this  respect,  are  as  orthodox 
as  Abraham  But  as  they  delight  in  being  worshipped  by 
men,  they  are  so  far  from  being  justitied  by  this  belief,  thtit 
th'ir  ffuilt  is  amplified  ;  and  they  tremble,  knowing  that  their 
usiirped  deities  shall  be  destroyed,  and  they  be  punished* 
That  such  a  faith  as  this  shou'd  justii'y  any  one,  St  Paul  ne- 
ver taught.  But  St.  James  must  have  been  acquainted  with 
some,  who  taught  it ;  otherwise  he  would  not  so  zealously 
have  inveighed  against  it. 

4.  When  our  blessed  Saviour  shall  come  in  his  glory  to 
judge  the  world,  he  shall  say  to  the  saints — 'Come,  ye  blessed 
of  my  Father,  inherit  the  kingdom  prepared  tor  you  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world  :  For  I  was  an  hungred,  and  ye  gave 
nie  meat:  I  was  thirsty,  and  ye  gave  me  drink:  I  was  a 
stransfer,  and  ye  took  me  in  :  naked,  and  ye  clothed  me  :  I 
was  sick,  and  ye  visited  me  :  I  was  in  prison,  and  ye  can.e 
unto  me.'  Matth.  25,  34  36.  In  this  text,  good  works  are 
exhibited  as  a  justification  of  saints  on  the  day  of  judgment* 
B  it  this  judgment  cannot  be  intended  for  God  to  discover  the 
characters  of  men  ;  because  he  is  omniscient,  and  thus  needs 
no  information  ;  hence  it  must  be  to  reveal  the  same  to  an  as- 
sembled world.  The  good  works  of  the  saints,  will  justify 
them  in  the  sight  of  inteligent  creatures.  Nevertheless  in  the 
siffht  of  God,  they  are  otherwise  justified  This  is  evident, 
from  our  Saviour's  declaration  ;  for  he  calls  them  the  blessed 
of  his  Father.  But  the  '  Father  has  blessed  them  in  Christ 
•with  all  spiritual  blessings.'  Eph.  1.  8.  *So  then  they  which 
be  of  faith  are  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham.'  Gal.  8,  9, 
Thus  as  they  were  blessed  of  God  by  ftijlh,  it  is  e^  idont,  they 
were  justified  by  faith  in  his  sight  ;  and  as  such,  they  inherit 
4he  kin-jdom.  Hence  this  text  beautifully  shew  s,  how  sa  nts 
are  justified  by  works  in  the  sight  of  an  assembled  world  ;  and 


11? 

yet,  how  they  were  well -pleasing  to  God,  because  he  had  bles- 
sed them  in  Christ  by  i'aith. 

IMPROVEMENT. 

All  men  are  sinners,  and  as  suoh  only,  they  may  be  justified 
before  God  :  for  a  just  person  cannot  be  ju&litied  ;  btcaust  ne 
is  such  already.  'To  him  that  workeih  not,  but  beiieveth  on 
him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his  laith  is  counted  tor  li^h- 
teoQsness.'  Rom.  4,  5.  How  clear  y  this  proves,  that  God 
justifies  the  ungodly  !  But  it  might  be  asked,  how  can  this  be  ? 
must  a  sinner  not  repent,  and  believe  in  Christ,  beiore  he  can 
bejistified?  I  answer  this  is  the  reason,  wl»}  God  only  jus- 
tities  the  ungodly.  A  penitent  sinner  is  one,  who  is  sensible 
of  his  sins,  and  justly  fears  the  wrath  to  come,  if  not  relieved ; 
and  as  a  believer  he  depends  on  a  h»  Ip  not  his  own  ;  heiice 
upon  Jesus  Christ.  Although,  God  justifies  one  that  is  peni- 
tent ;  yet  does  he  justify  one  that  is  ungodly.  The  penitent 
sinner,  only  differs  from  the  impenitent  in  so  far,  that  he  is 
sensible  of  his  guilt,  and  is  willing  to  accept  of  pardon  ;  w  here- 
as  the  other  is  insensible  of  the  same  ;  and  hence,  does  not 
perceive  the  necessity  of  a  saviour.  Should  the  person  that  is 
sensible  of  his  guilt,  not  be  guilty  ?  To  be  sensible  ot  one's 
guilt,  necessarily  presupposes  one,  that  is  guilty  *If  ye  were 
blind,  ye  should  have  no  sin  :  but  now  ye  say.  We  see  ;  there- 
fore your  sin  remaineth.'  John  9,  41.  If  we  were  blind  in 
our  own  estimation,  we  should  be  sensible  ot  our  guilt;  and 
thus  perceive  the  necessity  of  being  saved  by  Christ  ;  but 
whilst  we  imagine  we  see,  our  guilt  must  remain. 

Where  is  the  man,  who  does  not  stand  in  reed  of  this  jus- 
tification ?  Who  is  he,  that  is  not  ungodly  ?  Those  who  ap- 
parei'tly  are  the  vilest,  may  be  justified  :  for  in  the  sight  of 
God  there  is  no  difference  :  for  all  have  sinned  How  erro- 
neous is  the  opinion,  which  many  entertain,  that  they  must 
prepare  themselves  with  sundry  good  works,  and  a  thorough 
reformation  of  the  heart,  betore  they  are  entitled  to  believe  ; 
or,  hope  to  be  clothed  with  God's  righteousness  If  this  should 
be  correct,  then  they  would  as  just  men  be  justified.  How 
inconsistent ! 

Faith  works  by  love.  Gal  5,  6  ;  hence  ffood  works  are 
the  blessed  result,  by  which  we  are  justified  before  men,  who 
will  glorify  our  Father  in  heaven.  The  man  who  boasts  of 
an  abundance  of  faith  ;  and  yet  is  destitute  of  philanthropy, 
mav  be  pronounced  a  hypocrite.  But  let  no  one  conclude, 
yiaL  because  the  scriptures  reconunend  good  works  s  and  be-- 


eause  they  demonstrate  our  motives  to  others,  that  therefore 
they  are  iieces-^drv  c  j  i^stiiy  us  beioro  God.  Tht-y  are  proper- 
ly tii'^  blessed  effects  oi  our  justification  before  God.  '  W  hen 
ye  shall  have  di)iiedli  th  -se  tilings  which  are  commanded  vou, 
say,  vVe  are  unpiofitable  servants:  we  have  don'  that  which 
was  our  duty  to  do  '  Luke  17,  10.  If  alter  doing  all  that  we 
are  commanded,  we  are  to  acknowledge  ours*'lves  unpiofitable 
■servants,  it  is  evident  that  we  are  not  thereby  justified  before 
G  'd  ;  h  mce  we  must  be  clothed  with  a  righteoubness,  vvhicU, 
Jie  himself  has  prepared. 


FRAGMENT   III. 

tt  is  shewn  that  upon  the  principles  of  Christ's  meritorious  obedience,  Gd 
is  just,  when  hejustifies  a  sinner.     Sundrv  objections  answered. 

It  is  impossible  for  God  to  do  wrong,  because  he  is  just^ 
and  holy.  But  how  can  he  be  just,  when  he  justifies  a  wicked 
person  ?  T  le  correct  answer  cannot  bo  given,  without  keep- 
mg  in  view  the  atonement  ot  Jesus  Christ. 

Tnere  may  be  sundry  la",  s  matted  to  suit  the  peculiar  cir- 
cumstances of  nations.  But  as  the  circurn stances  to  which 
thvy  are  adapted,  freqaeruly  vary  ;  ht^ncc  they  may  be  altered, 
amended,  or  repealed.  Snch  laws,  though  they  may  not  be 
repugnant  to  ;  yet,  are  they  not  the  law  of  nature.  Hence 
all  nations  have  not  the  same  laws.  Laws  of  this  description, 
were  even  imposed  upon  the  Israelites  by  divine  authority. 
Such  were  their  civil  and  ceremonial  laws. 

But  the  moral,  or  a-^  it  is  sometimes  called  the  law  of  nature, 
is  rlifferent  in  this  respect.  Its  moral  precepts  are  unchange- 
ab'e  :  for  their  theme  is  love  ;  and  hence,  rest  upon  Gori's 
in>ral  perfections  of  justice,  goodness,  and  holiness.  Tbty 
are  adapted  to  all  men.  in  evry  I'lime,  in  all  ages,  and  under 
aU  circumstances.  This  law  being  a  perfect  rule  of  moral 
rectitude,  ^ m  neither  be  altered  amended,  nor  repealed.  For 
it  is  out  of  tlie  q\iesr!on,  that  God  should  ever  release  maa 
from  the  obHjration  of  love,  or  grant  him  liberty  to  do  wrong. 

Whnvas  the  civil  laws  o;'  nations  are  changeable,  it  some- 
times may  he  nc'^essary  to  release  some  of  the  citizens  from 
all  obligitons  to  th  -m  ;  and  under  some  peculiar  circumstan- 
ces, even  to  pardon  transgressors  of  the  same.    This  also  ap* 


ai9 

|»lies  to  the  ceremonial  laws,  which  God  had  imposed  upoo 
the  Israelites.  A^  lor  instance  :  God  cen  niundeci  that  all  the 
male-children  should  be  circumcised  on  the  eiglitlrdaj,  and 
declaring  in  the  meaiiwhiie,  in  the  case  ot  lion  obseivaiice, 
(liat  such  should  be  cut  oft'  horn  his  people.  Gcii.  17,  12  14» 
This  law  was  mutable,  and  sersed  a  tei.  poriiiy  puipobe  ; 
otherwise  it  would  always  have  been  in)pobeci  upiu  all  nen  ; 
neither  could  it  ever  have  been  abrogated  under  the  Jsew 
.Testament  dispensation.  The  children  of  Isiael  that  \sere 
born  in  the  udderne^s  by  the  >%ay,  as  their  fathers  came 
forth  out  of  Egypt,  were  not  circumcised  ;  notwithstanding, 
they  were  n>t  cut  oiF  from  God's  p.ople.  Josh.  5,  5,  7, 
Hence  as  circumcision  w  as  a  mutable  law,  God  could  as  he 
circumstances  might  render  it  expedient,  either  punish,  or  le- 
lease  the  transgressor  of  the  same,  without  violating  the  truth, 
or  justice. 

I5ut  as  the  moral  law  is  unchangeable  with  respect  to  its 
moral  precepts,  no  man  can  be  released  from  being  under  ob- 
ligation to  fulfil  it.  A  law  that  obligates  no  one  to  lulfil  it,  can- 
not be  moral,  and  uncha'.igeabe.  But  it  men  migh  tians- 
g-ess  this  law  with  imounity,  they  then  would  be  released 
from  all  obi  gations  of  obedience.  But  as  it  is  in  possible  for 
any  person  to  be  re'eased  from  the  ob'ijiaiions  to  this  taw,  it  is 
evident,  that  the  transgressor  n'ust  fulfil  the  law  by  suffering 
a  pmalty.  If  he  were  not  subject  to  a  penalty,  it  would  be 
the  same,  as  if  he  had  not  at  all  been  under  obligations  to  o- 
b^y  it.  Neither  can  a  transgressor  be  released  by  an  arbi- 
trary act  of  pardon  :  for  that  would  release  him  fi-oni  the  obli- 
gation to  the  law,  and  thus  he  would  ne  ther  have  fulfilled  it 
by  his  obedience,  nor  by  suffering  the  pena'ty,  which  would 
make  it  void,  and  of  no  effect.  Hence  no  transgressor  against 
an  nnchangeable  law  can  be  pardoned,  without  doing  injustice. 

The  scriptures  denounce  this  pena'ty — 'Cursed  is  every  one 
that  continueth  not  in  all  thins^s  that  are  written  in  tht  bock  of 
the  law  to  do  them.'  Gal.' 8.  10.  D>ut.  27,  26.  If  every 
man  that  does  not  omply  with  the  law  be  cursed,  how  then 
can  he  be  pardoned  ?  Should  he  be  pardoned,  then  this 
divine  denunciation  would  be  falsified.  But  this  cannot 
be.  The  mere  repentance  of  the  culprit  cannot  obtain  a 
pardon  :  for  thiit  cannot  obliterate  his  former  crimes,  nor 
remove  the  scandal,  which  he  thereby  brought  upon  divine 
government.  If  this  repentance  could  remove  the  curse 
pronounced  by  the  law,  th'n  the  culprit  wonld  be  blessed ; 
and  thus  he  would  be  both  blessed  and  cursed  under  the 
same  law.  I  repeat  it,  if  the  transgressor,  who  i>?  cursed 
hy  the  la\Y  should  upon  his  mere  I'epentancc  be  pardoneds 


no 

then  would  he  be  both  blessed,  and  cursed  under  the  same 
law.  In  the  hrst  instance,  he  would  be  ciu'sed  as  a  ti  ansgies-' 
sor,  and  in  the  next,  he  would  be  blessed  by  being  pardoned.- 
Thus  a  curse  would  not  be  a  curse,  and  God  would  have 
thieatened  it,  when  he  did  not  intend  to  execute  it.  This  all 
would  be  inconsistent,  and  highly  derogatory  to  divine  vera- 
city. In  the  denunciation  of  this  penalty  no  exception  is 
made,  that  up:)n  the  culprit's  repentance  it  is  to  be  vuid  .  but 
it  is  absolute — 'cursed  i.s  every  one  that  continucth  not  in  all. 
things  that  are  written  in  the  book  of  the  law,  &c,'  Accor- 
ding to  this,  there  is  not  the  least  prospect  for  a  transgressor 
lo  be  pardoned  upon  his  mere  teprntance. 

It  is  impossible  to  reconcile  the  justification  of  a  sinner  to 
the  divine  justice  ;  unless  we  consider  the  sufferings,  and 
death  of  Jesus  as  an  atonement  tor  the  guilty.  Christ  was 
crucified  Nevertheless,  he  is  and  was  holy,  and  immacu- 
late. Why  was  such  an  august  personage  crucified  ?  Al- 
though, the  couraged  Jews  conspired  for  that  purpose  ;  yet 
could  they  Ui^ver  have  performed  ihe  same,  without  his  volun- 
tary submission.  For  he  might  easily  have  escaped  their 
snares,  or,  else  hurled  them  into  destruction.  Hence  he  says, 
'Therefore  doth  my  Father  love  me,  because  I  lay  down  my 
lii*e,  that  I  might  take  it  again  No  man  taketh  it  fron)  me, 
but  I  lay  it  down  ot"  mysel  I  have  power  to  lay  it  down, 
and  1  have  power  to  take  it  again '  John  10,  17,  18  The 
scriptures  also  d'clare  that  'it  pleased  the  Lord  to  bruise  him  ; 
to  put  him  to  grief,  and  make  his  soul  an  offering  for  sin.'  Isa. 
5S,  10.  But  how  could  God,  according  to  the  principles  of 
justice,  deliver  Christ  as  an  innocent  being  to  suffer  this  igno- 
minious, and  painful  death  ?  The  answer  is  not  sufficient, 
that  he  suffered  as  a  martyr  to  confirm  the  truth.  There  is  no 
doubt,  but  what  he  was  also  put  to  death  by  the  Jews,  be- 
cause he  would  not  abandon  his  confession  ol  the  truth.  A 
martyr  indeed  mav  be  persecuted  by  wicked  men,  but  can  ne- 
ver be  cursed  of  God  fir  vindicating  the  truth.  As  it  is  evi- 
dent that  the  Lord  br-iised  him,  and  put  him  to  grief,it  must  have 
been  for  a  different  purpose,  than  merely  to  establish  the  truth. 
Christ  was  circumcised,  anr!  'every  man  that  is  circumcised  is 
a  debtor  to  do  the  who'e  law.'  Gal.  5,  3.  comp.  Rom.  15,  8, 
'^God  sent  forth  his  son,  made  (born)  ol  a  woman,  made  (put) 
under  the  law,  to  redeem  them  that  were  under  the  law.'  ch- 
4,  4.  'For  he  (God)  hath  made  him  (  Christ)  to  be  sin  (or  us, 
who  knew  no  sin.'  2  Cor  5,  21.  'Christ  hath  redeemed  us 
from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a  curse  for  us:  for  it  is 
written,  Cut  sed  is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree.'    Gal.  $- 


121 

18  These  texts  plainly  shew  that  Christ  was  put  under  the 
luxv,  that  he  was  made  sin  tor  us  ;  and  hence  that  lie  was  curbed. 
N  jw  since  Christ  was  made  sin  for  us ;  hence  upon  this  ground 
it  was  just,  that  he  sht  uld  be  cursed,  and  sufter  the  death  of 
the  cross.  He  that  condescended  to  be  'the  lamb  oi  God  to 
take  away  the  sin  of  the  v\or!d';  also  became  liable  to  sutler 
the  penalty  due  to  sin.  A  man  who  by  his  o\^n  consent  be- 
comes a  surety  for  another,  makes  himseli  liable  to  dischaige 
h:s  debts.  Although,  Christ  perfectly  innocent  in  hini?eii  ; 
yet  because  he  voluritari!}  assumed  the  guilt  of  n  ai^kind.  it 
was  compatible  with  justice  that  he  shouh!  sufter.  In  so  far 
as  Christ  assumed  the  guilt  of  all  iii-n,  he  may  be  considered 
the  greatest  malefactor  in  the  world  ;  and  as  such  the  •nise 
that  was  laid  upon  him  ^^as  urparalehd  ;  and  his  sufieiii  gs 
without  a  precedent,  or  a  model.  As  he  ^^as  made  a  >  uise 
for  us,  all  our  sms  were  punished  in  I  im  .  'F^t  the  low  of 
Christ  constraineth  us  ;  bi  caus<  va  e  thi  s  juc'gt  ,  tba;  il  t  re  di- 
ed for  all,  then  all  s\ere  dead.'  2  Cor.  5,  14.  Thus  if  Christ 
died  for  all,  it  is  viewed  the  same,  as  ii«al!  had  died  thim- 
selves. 

Whether  the  crimes  be  punished  in  the  persons  of  the  gni'ty, 
or,  in  that  of  their  substitute,  fbe  law  leceivts  its  den  i rir^s. 
When  the  substitute  for  the  guilty  has  been  ptnished,  it  is  not 
repugnant  to  justice  to  justify  the  sinner. 

A  though,  the  scriptures  plainh  teach  thatthe  death  of  Christ 
is  an  atonement  tor  the  guilty  ;  y<  t  ther&  are  sundry  w  ho  pi  o. 
fess  Christianity,  that  deny  it,  and* allege  some  appaient  pir- 
plexing  objections.  I  shall  here  state  son  e  oi  the  piincipal 
objections,  with  my  unswers. 

Objection  1  God  is  love  ;  hence  there  can  be  no  wrath  'n 
him.  Should  he  have  wrath,  then  there  would  be  brth, 
wrath,  and  love  in  him,  whiih  are  contrary  principles  ;  and 
thus  God  would  be  against  himself,  which  would  be  hig'hiy 
absurd.  Upon  this  ground  it  VAOuid  also  be  absurd  to  suppose, 
that  his  only  begotten  Son  should  sufter,  and  die,  to  appease 
his  wrath. 

Answer.  The  wrath  of  God  is  not  like  that  of  man.  The 
wrath  of  man  frequent "y  arises  from  his  disordered  passions, 
which  cannot  be  said  ol  God.  God  indeed  is  Love,  cut  Love 
itself,  cannot  love  that  which  is  not  v\orthj  to  be  'oved  It  is 
impossible  for  God  to  love  that  which  is  evil  :  for  if  he  did, 
he  must  hate  that  which  is  good  :  because  good,  and  evil  are 
more  opposite  to  each  other,  than  light  and  darkness.  Evi'  is 
injurious  to  Gnd'^  works,  and  as  he  ^oves  that  which  he  has 
made,  and  as   he  is  a  consist-nt  character,  be  cannot  lov€ 


123 

both  good,  and  «vil  ;  hence  he  must  necessarily  hate  the  lat- 
ter. If  he  loved  both  gojd,and  evil,  then  indeed  in  him  ihere 
would  be  twj  contrary  principles.  Now  since  an  evii  being 
cannot  enjoy  the  good  emanating  from  Love,  the  same  be- 
comes extremely  miserable,  and  this  is  called  wrath.  As  lit- 
tle as  the  sun  is  darkness,  and  light  ;  because  the  night  bird 
cannot  bear  his  beams,  whilst  the  eagle,  high  mounted,  basks 
in  his  lustre  ;  so  little  can  it  be  said,  that  there  are  two  con- 
trary principles  in  Gjd  ;  because  evil  creatures  are  disquali- 
fied to  enjoy  tlie  e.nanations  of  his  Love,  whilst  the  innocent 
>valk  in  its  beatitude.  Hence  love,  and  wrath  are  not  two 
contrary  principles  in  God  ;  but  only  two  difteivnt  relations, 
towards  two  different  objects.  Sin  is  an  evil ;  God  cannot 
love  it ;  thi^refore,  the  creaiure  that  is  infected  with  it,  cannot 
enjoy  the  blessings  oi'  Love,  until  it  be  morally  obliterated, 
G  )d  indeed  loves  man,  in  so  far  as  he  is  his  creature  ;  but  as 
he  is  involved  in  sin,  all  the  avenues  are  obstructed,  that  love 
can  have  no  access  to  him,  to  make  him  happy.  Sin  cannot 
b"  removed,  and  naturally  made,  as  if  it  never  had  been  com- 
mitted ;  yet  it  may  morally  be  blotted  out  by  the  atonement 
of  Christ.  When  the  sinner  is  viewed  in  connexion  with  the 
atonement,  then  only  can  God  cause  him  to  participate  the  be- 
atifick  flow  of  his  love. 

Objection  2  If  Christ  be  our  surety,  and  has  fully  atone- 
ed  for  our  sins,  how  then  can  it  be  grace  in  God  to  forgive 
us?  We  are  taught  to  pray,  'Forgive  us  our  debts  as  we 
forgive  our  debtors.'  Matth.  6,  12.  Now  if  God  does  not 
forgive  us,  until  our  debts  are  paid,  and  as  he  is  our  example, 
we  cannot  forgive  our  debtors,  until  they  have  satisfied  us, 
I '  our  surety  discharged  our  debts,  though  we  be  free  from 
our  creditor  ;  yet  then  would  we  be  in  debt  to  our  surety, 
who  also  cannot  forgive  us  ;  because  he  only  must  forgive  as 
God  forgives,  i.  e.  not  until  we  have  repaid  him.  On  this 
principle  there  can  be  no  forgiveness  in  the  universe. 

Answer.  If  the  sinner  had  procured  the  surety  himself,  it 
might  with  some  propriety  be  said,  that  there  would  be  no 
grace  in  God  to  I'orgive.  But  the  sinner  contributed  nothing 
towards  procuring  this  surety,  but  he  w  as  sent  by  the  Fathei  — 
*For  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten 
Son.  John  8,  16.  Now  since  God  himself  procured  this 
surety,  who  made  the  atonement,  is  it  not  strange  that  it  should 
not  be  grace  in  him,  when  he  pardon*-  the  culprit  ?  It  is  an 
unparalleled  grace,  whtn  the  offended  party,  who  have  it  in 
their  power  to  render  the  offender  miserab'e  ;  and  yet  conde- 
scend to  furnish  asiu-ety,  by  whose  mediation  they  may  for 


123 

give  upon  principles  of  justice.  We  must  forgive  those  that 
tiv'spass  against  us.  Bat  this  does  not  prove  that  therefore, 
our  debtors  must  render  us  a  particular  payment.  We  must 
forgive  as  God  forgives.  But  how  does  he  forgive  ?  He  lor- 
gives  for  the  sake  of  Christ's  atonement  ;  and  this  is  the 
ground,  which  justly  obligates  us  to  forgive  those  that  tres- 
pass against  us  :  as  the  aposile  says,  Morgiving  one  another, 
even  as  God  for  Christ's  sakehatli  foigiven  you.'    tph.  4, 82. 

Christians  live  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ  ;  hence  in  that  of 
grace,  and  iorgiveness.  It  is  therefore  necessary,  that  among 
all  the  subjects  thereof,  there  should  be  a  reciprocal  fcrgive- 
ness.  The  man  that  will  not  forgive,  cannot  be  a  suliject  in 
this  kingdom  where  th're  is  forgiveness  ;  because  he  wishes 
none  to  trespass  a2:ainst  him,  without  making  them  suffer  lor 
it  ;  hence  he  must  be  associated  to  such  an  assembly,  a 
mong  whom  every  one  receives  what  he  merits  ;  and  as  he 
himself  continually  sins,  and  upon  his  own  principle!-,  which 
are,  not  to  forgive,  he  must  necessarily  lay  himself  liable  to  e- 
ternal  damnation. 

Sin^e  Jesus  Christ  has  redeemed  us,  it  is  evident  that  we 
are  indebted  to  him  ;  and  it  is  also  admitted,  that  it  w  ould  be 
unjust,  if  for  all  his  agonies,  and  death,  he  should  not  be  re- 
warded. This  consideration  has  led  some  to  assert,  that  the 
redeemed  must  perform  so  many  good  works,  until  they  have 
repaid  Christ.  But  this  is  out  of  the  question.  For  if  the  re^ 
deemed  by  all  their  good  works,  could  remunerate  Christ  for 
his  sufferings,  they  would  cease  to  be  under  any  obligatinns  to 
him  as  a  mediator  :  for  the  man  who  has  repaid  his  surety, 
cannot  be  considered  the  surety's  property  ;  but  he  thereby  ac- 
quires  his  independence.  We  must  ever  remain  Christ's  own ; 
tor  *the  heathens  were  given  to  him  for  his  inheritance,  and  the 
uttermost  parts  of  the  earth  for  his  possession.'  Ps.  2,  8.  To 
Christ  simply  considered  as  Jehovah,  no  inheritance  could  be 
given,  as  he  is  the  sovereign  of  all  creation  ;  but  in  so  far  as  he 
was  made  man,  and  is  constituted  a  mediator,  he  acquired  a 
peculiar  dominion  over  all  men.  *For  none  of  us  liveth  to 
himself,  and-no  man  dieth  to  himself.  For  whether  we  live, 
we  live  unto  the  Lopd  ;  and  whether  we  die,  we  die  unto  the 
l«ard  !  whether  we  live  therefore,  or  die,  we  are  the  Lord's. 
For  to  this  end  Christ  both  died,  and  rose,  and  revived,  that 
h-  might  be  Lord  both  of  the  dead  and  living.'  Rom.  14, 
7  9  comp.  John  5,  22  27.  Thus  to  Christ,  as  a  God- 
mm  the  world  of  mankind  was  given,  and  whether  dead,  or 
alive  they  are  his  own.  This  is  also  a  reward  for  hi"-  suffer- 
jjags,  and  ii  wili  afford  him  unspeakable  joy,  one  day  to  buhoi<? 


1S4 

his  spiritual  seed,  numerous  like  the  sand  upon  the  sea-shore, 
iuiidbting  tiie  reguns  of  heaven  ;  and  in  each  ot  tbi-m  tne 
trop.i  /s  o\  liis  sud.;  mgs,  and  the  beams  othis-love  :  lor  'he 
s'la  see  o!  the  lavail  of  his  soil,  and  sha  1  be  satistied.'  Isa. 
5  >,  [L  Tills  ,J  is  i-^  as  a  surety  has  a  re  \ard,  and  as  his  a- 
to  lement  satisfied  justioi,  it  is  not  absurd,  wlien  he  pardons 
sinners  for  the  sake  of  the  same. 

O  jje-tion  g.  ii  Gid  loved  sinners,  so  as  to  provide  a  sure- 
ty i  tr  them  why  could  he  not  have  forgiven  them  at  hr»t  ? 
Wiiat  d  )es  it  signify,  when  tne  creditor  himse  f  gives  the  debt- 
or the  m  )ney  o  pay  thj  debt  ?— is  it  not  the  same  as  if  he  re- 
ceived no  payment  ? 

Answer  God  ought  not  simp'y  to  be  viewed  as  an  individ- 
ual, private  charact.r;  but  as  the  creato  ,  judge,  and  governor 
of  the  universe.  He  created  all  things  good,  Gen.  1,  bl; 
hence  were  calcula  ed  to  produce  good  effects;  so  that  good 
might  proeeed  to  g  )od  ;  iijht  to  Ight ;  virtue  to  virtue  ;  order 
to  order  ;  harmony  to  harmony.  But  sin  does  not  only  injure 
the  creature  that  commits  it;  but  also  reverses  this  goodl}  .  iiar- 
m  nim-  chain:  for  vvhen  on^-  important  part  thereof  is  disor- 
dered, it  must  he  felt  by  the  whole  ;  hence  evil  effects  are  pio- 
dueed  ;  divine  g  ivernment  is  scandalized,  imd  holy,  intelli- 
gent beings  offended.  If  God  forgave  sinui  rs  w  ithout  an  a- 
tonement,  his  conduct  would  be  paitial,  as  he  would  bestow 
favours  upon  the  guilty,  as  we  1  as  upon  innocent,  and  lu  \y 
beings.  Thus  the  guilty  would  enjoy  life  and  salvation,  us 
we'l  as  the  innocent.  VVou'd  not  thi'^  be  partiality.  ai;d  injus- 
tice, when  a  civi'  government  equaMy  prot  cted  an  in  an  ous 
vil  an,  AitH  an  honest,  valiant  patriot  ?  It  \^ould  be  tanking 
the  base  with  the  honest,  and  virtue  and  vice  v\ould  be  treat- 
eH  a'ik-.  What  justice  woukl  there  be  in  God,  if  he  granted 
lif",  and  salvation  to  the  guilty,  the  same  as  to  those  that  never 
had  sinned  ? — would  he  not  therrh}  p  ace  the  guilty,  and  iimo^ 
cent  upon  the  same  ground  : — and  make  no  distint  tion  be- 
tween viee,  and  virtue?  Ifgud'y  man  was  the  on'y  intelli- 
gent creature  in  the  universe,  God  \\ouId  not  equalize  him 
^vith  the  innoc  nt  :  provided,  he  pardoned  him  without  an  a- 
tonement.  Yet  m  this  case,  it  would  not  be  just  in  itself. 
But  is  man  the  on'y  intellgent  creature  ?  No.  There 
are  innumerab'e  myriads  of  holy,  and  happy  beings  in 
celestial  reoions  ;  and  who  knows,  but  what  the  theory 
pf  some  oi  the  philosophers  may  not  be  correct,  (hat  many 
p  t  e  stars  are  v^orlds  superior  in  magnHude  to  our  earth; 
^nd  inhabited  by  ratona'  beings  ?  All  holy,  and  happy  be- 
mgs  might  justly  consider  thei^-  rights  aggrieved,  at  bthoidiiig 


125 

die  ffuHty  favourcfl.  When  jufl^ement  is  to  be  executed  upon 
mv-itick  Babylon,  it  is  said,  'RJoice  (»ver  her,  thi^u  lieawn, 
and  ye  holy  aposrles  and  prophets  ;  for  God  hath  avi-nged  y(.u 
on  her.'  R'V.  18,  '^0  Wiien  heaven  is  rejoiced,  v\hat  cun 
otherwise  be  imphed,  but  that  the  ho  y,  and  rational  inhabit- 
ants thereof  rejoice,  at  beholdinj;  the  impaitial  distribution  of 
justice  ?  If  (he  judgment,  executed  upon  mystick  Babylon,  is 
to  rej)ic?  heavon,  it  is  equally  consistent,  that  when  God  pun- 
i<he  1  the  guilty  world  in  the  person  of  Jt'sus  Christ,  all  ho  y 
be  ngs  sh  )uld  also  rejoice,  at  the  manifestati«  n  ot  his  Justice, 
in  the  restoration  of  the  guilty.  Thi'y  saw,  tiiat  although,  he 
would  pardon  the  guilty  ;  yet  that  he  thereby  did  not  equalize 
th  m  with  the  guilty  ;  because  he  manifested  his  hatred  against 
sin  by  the  death  of  Christ.  Had  the  atonement  not  bet  n 
mad^,  and  yet  God  pardoned  the  guilty,  the  rights  of  holy  be- 
ings would  have  been  slighted  ;  and  vice,  and  virtue  made  e- 
qud.  To  slight  the  riglits  of  holy  beings,  and  to  coniound 
vice  with  virtue  ;  in  order  to  shew  a  favour  to  the  gui  ty, 
would  be  unjust,  and  abominable,  which  conduct  may  not 
with  )ut  blasphemy  be  ascribed  to  God. 

St.  Paul  sa  th,  'And  having  m.ide  peace  through  the  blood 
of  his  [Christ'-]  cross,  by  him  to  reconcile  all  things  unto  him- 
self ;  by  him,  /  say,  whether  they  he  things  in  earth,  or  things 
in  heaven.'  C  >l  1,  20.  Why  does  the  apostle  say,  that 
Carist  by  his  blood  reconciles  all  things  unto  himself :  wheth- 
er in  earth  or  in  heaven  ?  It  is  easily  understood  that  the 
things  on  earth  are  gui'ty  men,  who  also  have  been  redeen^ed. 
B'lt  the  things  in  heaven  are  holy  angels  ;  nevertheless,  they 
coul  1  not  like  guilty  men  have  bem  redeemed,  as  they  wt  re 
notunier  the  sentence  of  condemnation.  Neither  can  it  be 
supposed,  that  things  in  heaven  ever  had  been  at  enmity 
w  th  Christ,  that  he  on  that  account  needed  to  reconci'e  theni 
unto  himself.  But  as  the  apostle  s;iys,  all  things  in  heaven 
are  recon  iled  unto  him,  the  conclusion  must  be  •  that  when 
he  reconciles  sinners  unto  himself,  holy  angels,  who  be'ore 
must  have  abhorred  them,  in  consequence  of  their  !?uilt.  be. 
come  reconciled  to  them  ;  so  that  when  he  pardons  the  sinner, 
they  are  so  far  from  being  dissatisfied  with  him  for  doing  it, 
that  th :*v  are  reconciled  to  him.  and  rejoice  when  sinners  are 
saved  by  virtue  of  his  atonement  :  for  'there  is  joy  in  the  pres- 
en^e  of  the  anar^^ls  of  God  over  one  sinner  that  repent«» '  Luke 
It,  10.  Or  Christ  is  the  great  object,  in  whom  every  ag- 
g'ieved  right  is  restored,  to  whom  every  holy  bein?  is  united, 
bv  whom  sinners  are  reconci'ed  ;  and  union,  and  harmony 
restored  amoDg  th«se  that  wereat  variancef    This  interprc' 


takion  is  correct,  because  it  is  confirmed  by  the  apostle  him- 
sel — Eph.  1,  9,  10. — •  Llavmg  made  known  unto  us  the  mys- 
tery ofnis  will,  according  to  his  good  pleasure,  which  he  hath 
purposed  in  himself ;  that  in  th3  dispensation  of  the  fulness 
oftanes  he  might  gather  together  in  one  all  things,  both  uhich 
are  in  heaven,  and  wkich  are  on  earth  :  eve^i  in  him.'  If 
C  irist  shall  gather  together  in  on ',  all  things  in  heaven,  and 
on  earth,  what  will  he  otherwise  do  than  unite  men  to  men, 
and  angels  to  m  ^n  ?  T  iroagh  the  atonement  of  Jesus,  God 
b  'holds  the  odijus  stain,  which  sin  introduced  into  the  world 
miraily  obliterated,  and  the  obstacles  removed  ;  so  that  the 
emanations  of  hs  love  may  visit  the  guilty,  and  cement  earth 
and  heaven.  VVh^n  G  )d  is  viewed  as  a  judge,  and  governor 
of  the  universe,  who  treats  all  rational  crt^atures  agreeable  to 
the  relation  they  sustain  towards  one  an)ther  ;  hence  with  jus- 
tice, and  impartiality,  the  above  objection  vanishes.  For  it 
supposes  God  as  a  private  character,  who  like  an  angry  man, 
that  is  insulted  by  another  one,  seeks  for  revenge  to  cool  his 
passion  :  or  like  a  merchant,  that  has  an  account  of  a  few  dol- 
lars agiinstone  of  his  customers  sues  for  the  payment.  But 
no  such  groveling  views,  are  entertained  by  any  rational  ad- 
vocate for  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement. 

O 'ejection  4.  The  penalty  threatened  to  sinners  is  eternal  ; 
hence  if  Oh 'ist  suffered  ior  them  as  a  substitute,  the  punish- 
ment  which  he  received  mu-<t  a'so  have  been  eternal  ;  and 
thus  h^  would  yet  be  suffering,  and  hereafter  to  all  eternity. 
Bat  we  know  that  his  sufferings  have  ended  long  ago,  and 
that  he  is  entered  into  glory  • 

Answer  if  Christ  WM'e  a  mere  man,  this  objection  would  be 
valid.  AUhouajh  Christ  be  a  real  man  ;  yet  is  he  also,  the  su- 
preme Filial  G)lhead.  [See  IJohn  5,  20.]  This  God- 
Iiead  was  mad'^  flesh,  J  >hn  1,  11  ;  hence  in  this  flesh,  or  hu- 
man niture  'all  the  *"uln  'ss  of  the  God  head  dwells  bodily.' 
C)\.  2,  9.  Thus  the  G  >i-head  not  only  being  united  to  ;  but 
als)  b'ingmade  man  ;  thi"  man  not  simply  as  such,  but  in 
this  wonderful  state,  must  have  all  divine  perfections,  though 
not  phvsica'ly  ;  yet  really  assimilated  to  him.  For  if  the  di- 
vme  perfections  be  separated  from  the  human  nature,  then 
G  »d  is  also  a  sp.paratc  person  from  the  same  ;  because  God 
W'>uld  not  be  Gjd,  unless  he  possessed  all  supreme  pc  fections. 
Bit  the  scriptures  plainly  toach,  that  the  Word  was  made 
flesh  Christ  thus  viewed,  is  an  infinite,  eternal,  omnipotent 
person.  With  a  mere  creature,  eternity  consists  in  a  duration  ; 
but  with  God  it  is  a  perpetua'  present,  an  infinite  magnitude ; 
hence  no  past^  nor  future«    Christ  being  Qod-mm,  hig  6vSer- 


127 

ings,  though  apparently  transitory  ;  yet  were  eternal  in  mag. 
nitude  ;  because  they  piocecdeti  In  m  an  infinite  person  ;  <  nd 
thus  were  superior  to  the  sufterings,  which  all  sinners  would 
have  had  to  endure  in  an  eternal  duration.  The  above  objec- 
tion can  only  be  brought  against  those,  who  advocate  the 
doctrine  of  the  atonement  ;  and  yet  deny  thai  the  supren  e  di- 
vine perf'ctions,  by  the  incarnation  ol  the  Filial  God-head 
have  been  assimilated  to  the  human  ni-ture  ;  so  thai  it  was  ca- 
pable of  sutfering  infinitely  in  a  shorttime.  It  is  onl^  too  tiue, 
that  m.iny  of  those  who  ^lep  lorth  as  champions  tor  the  'doc- 
trine of  the  atonement,  roundly  deny  that  the  hunanit)  ol  Je- 
sus Christ  Is  so  inseparably  one  with  Jehovah,  that  it  is  there- 
.by  dignified  with  the  divine  perfections  «'t  infinity,  on.nipo- 
tence,  omnipresence,  &c.  and  thus  must  necessaril}  conclude, 
that  his  sufferings  were  only  those  of  a  mere  maij  ;  and  thus 
the  objection  of  the  Socinians  acquires  a  great  vahdity.  li  is 
hi  vain  to  say,  that  although  the  sufferings  ol  Christ  w  ere  not 
infinite  ;  hence  not  equivalent  to  the  penalty  against  the  smsof 
all  sinners  ;  yet  God  has  put  an  arbitrary  value  upon  them  ; 
so  that  they  are  to  be  counted  tor  infinitely  more,  than  they 
are  in  themselves.  For  it  is  impossible,  that  God  should  ac- 
count thai  a  real  infinite  atonement,  which  was  not  so  in  itself; 
because  he  would  have  to  count  the  spurious  lor  the  genuine  ; 
it  would  be  a  mere  sham,  and  a  niockery  to  justice.  If  the 
sufferings  of  Christ  are  not  infinitely  valuable  m  themselves, 
but  only  to  be  counted  so,  because  God  had  a  social  con- 
nexion with  him,  and  upheld  him  in  his  sufferings  ;  why  was 
it  necessary  for  God  to  be  incarnate,  since  he  has  a  social  con- 
cexion  with  every  saint,  and  upholds  all  things  in  the  universe  ? 
Again — If  the  sufferings  of  Christ  v  ere  not  infinite  ;  but  only 
Co  be  counted  so,  then  the  death  of  the  animals  under  the  Le- 
vitical  priesthood  might  have  been  a  sufficient  atonement  for 
the  sins  of  the  world  ;  because  God  might  have  put  an  arbi- 
trary value  upon  the  same,  and  account  it  infinite,  w  ithout  be- 
ing 9o  itself.  Why  could  the  blood  of  animals  under  the  law, 
not  be  a  sufficient  atonement  for  sin  ?  Because  it  had  no  m- 
trinsick  value,  and  God  could  not  consistent  vi'ith  his  veracity, 
count  that  infinitely  valuable,  which  was  not  so  in  itself.  This 
blood  of  sacrificial  animals  was  a  type  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  ; 
h  -nee  of  God's  own  blood.  Acts  20,  28  ;  hence  possessing  in 
itself  an  infinite  value  to  atone  for  all  crimes  ;  and  virtue  to 
cleanse  from  all  iniquity.  The  inspired  writer  concludes — 'If 
the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  an  heifer 
sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh  ; 
how  much  more  shall  the,  blood  of  Christ,  who  through  the  e. 


128 

ternal  spirit  oftered  himself  without  spot  to  God,  purge  your 
conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve  the  living  God.'  Htb. 
9,  13,  14. 

That  m  t  only  the  mere  flesh  of  Christ,  or  his  human  na- 
ture ;  but  the  whole  person  was  a  partaker  of  sufferings,  is  il- 
lustrated by  the  following  text : — 'For  Christ  also  hath  once 
sud'red  for  sins,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  that  he  might  bring  us 
i  God,  being  put  lo  death  in  the  flesh,  but  quickened  in  ihe 
spirit.'  1  Pet.  8,  18  This  text  shewing  thut  Chrit-t  was  put 
to  leath,  the  question  may  be  asked,  who  is  Christ  ?  Is  he 
mere  flesh,  or  man  ?  Ii  he  were  but  flesh  i.  e.  man,  it  would 
be  absurd  to  say  that  he  \\  as  put  to  death  in  the  flesh  :  for 
who  would  not  know  that  il  a  man  be  put  to  death,  that  he 
would  be  put  to  death  as  a  man  ?  Hence  he  must  have  an- 
other nature,  which  is  that  of  God.  He  did  ntt  suffer,  and 
die  as  a  mere  n  an  ;  becnuse  he  was  put  to  death  in  the  flesh. 
]N.)vv  if  the  mere  humatiitv  o  Christ,  which  i>  understood  by 
the  term  flesh,  (See  John  1,  14.  1  Tim.  2,  5  Rom  9,  5.) 
had  only  been  put  to  death,  what  need  would  there  have  been 
to  say.  he  was  put  to  death  in  the  flesh  ?  What  sense  would 
there  be  in  saying,  the  flesh  was  put  to  death  in  the  flesh  ? 
S  nee  this  text  declares  that  Christ  was  put  to  death  in  the 
flesh,  it  must  be  cone  uded  that  this  death,  is  the  death  of  the 
whole  person  of  the  God  man;  or  that  the  God  man  died  ac- 
cording to  the  flesh.  God  as  God  could  not  have  died  ;  other- 
wise it  would  not  have  been  necessary  to  have  assumed  hiim.an 
nature  Whereas  God  was  made  flesh,  it  ibllows  that  what- 
ever happens  to  the  flesh,  the  God  head  partakes  of  it;  hence 
it  may  properly  be  said, when  the  human  nature  died,  God 
died;  because  that  nature  died,  which  he  assumed;  and  thus 
also,  it  is  said  the  Lord  of  glory  was  crucified.'  1  Cor.  2,  8. 
Let  this  not  be  deemed  ab-urd  For  even  if  one  of  the  hn  bs 
of  a  man  be  woundf  d,  it  is  accurately  said  the  man  is  v^  ounded ; 
because  the  limb  is  a  part  of  himself.  Although,  the  lin'b  be 
a  part  of  the  man  ;  yet  it  cannot  be  said ,  that  the  man  v^  as  made 
the  lin.b.  the  same  as  the  scriptures  declare,  that  the  W^ord.  or 
Filial  Deity  was  made  flesh,  John  1,  14  ;  which  shew  s  that 
the  'imb  of  a  n  an  has  not  so  close  a  connexirn  with  himself, 
as  God  has  with  his  flesh,  i.  e.  with  the  humanity  he  assumed. 
Now  if  even  the  wound  that  has  been  inflicted  upon  the  man's 
li  1  b  may  be  said,  to  have  been  inflictcl  upon  the  man  him- 
self, because  of  his  connexion  with  his  limb  ;  w  ith  how  much 
more  propriety  may  it  not  be  said,  that  God  died  according 
to  hi';  flesh,  when  he  is  not  merely  connected  w  ith  it,  as  ihf? 
man  is  with  his  limb  ;  but  himself  was  made  fiesh» 


i5>9 

The  subject  thus  viewed,  there  was  a  real,  and  perfect  a- 
tonemeiit  macle  tor  all  sin,  without  involving  Cl-rist  to  suffer 
eternally  in  duratic  n  ;  hence  the  above  objectKn  vamsl c:-. 

Objection  5.  Temporal  death  vsas  aKo  a  penalty  o!  the 
law  ;  hence  it  Christ  made  an  atoncn  ci.t  ior  all  sin,  why  is 
this  penalty  not  removed  ?     Death  itigns  o\ti  all. 

Answer  That  this  death  was  inc  uded  in  the  penalty  is 
admitted.  But  through  the  at<  nen  ent  v\  Chrisr  it  is  con- 
verted into  a  blessing  ;  bei  ause  by  it  v\e  get  (ieUveied  ot  sun- 
dry evils  which  ure  peiuliai  t(.  the  bodj  in  its  fallen  state. 
This  obj.  ction  would  be  tormidable  :  piovidcd,  c\r  b<  dies 
should  eternally  remain  the  victims  oi  the  giave.  But  Chiist 
shall  raise  up  the  dead,  and  death  be  sv  allowed  up  ii.  Victciy. 
1  Cor.  15,  54.  Thus  the  glorious  resurrection  of  the  bf  dy, 
does  more  than  remove  this  part  of  the  penalty. 

Ail  afflictions  are  not  to  be  considered  punishments.  There 
is  a  difference  bet\^  een  a  punishment,  and  a  chastise  mert.  As 
for  instance:  a  man  be  conv  cted  ot  a  crime,  and  sentenced  to 
receive  a  few  stripes  :  this  would  be  a  punisbnient.  not  sin  ply 
because  of  the  transient  pain  ;  but  rather  because  of  the  judi- 
cial sentence,  which  attaches  a  disgrace  to  the  cu'prit.  W  here- 
as  a  surgeon  through  tender  conipassion  to  his  patient,  rright 
amputate  one  of  his  morbid  limbs,  to  preserve  his  systc  m  Iron^ 
putrefaction.  'Notwithste.ndirg.  this  cpnaticn  wculd  be  more 
painful  than  the  few  stripes  the  culprit  is  adjudged  to  bear  ; 
yet  it  could  not  properly  be  called  a  penalty  :  beiause  it  ^s  not 
performed  in  consequence  of  a  judicial  sentence  ;  but  it  is  in- 
tended to  result  in  a  blessing  A  divine  chastisf  ment  pro- 
ceeds from  fatherly  love,  but  a  punishment  from  a  judicial 
sentence.  Hence  sicknesses,  all  other  afflictions,  together 
with  death,  because  of  the  atonement  of  Chnst,  become  so  ma- 
nv  blessings  to  the  believer.  Or,  as  the  apostle  expresses  it 
*We  know  that  all  things  work  together  for  good  to  them,  that 
love  God,  to  them  who  are  called  according  to  his  purpose,' 
Rom.  8,  28. 

Obj.  6.  The  scriptures  declare  that  the  blasphemy  against 
the  Holy  Ghost  shall  never  be  forgiven.  If  the  death  of 
Christ  atoned  for  all  sins,  why  is  this  sin  unpardonuble  ? 

Answer.  The  sins  of  all  men  in  the  universe,  cannot  be 
equal  to  the  atonement  of  .Tesus  Christ  :  hence  even  exceeds 
that  which  is  commonly  called  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost, 
*  Where  sin  abounded,  grace  did  much  more  abound  '  Rom, 
5,  20.  If  grace  abounds  more  than  sin,  it  is  evident  that  it 
cannot  be  exc  eded  bv  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghos  . 

Our  blessed  Savioui'  bavin jr  cast  out  a  devil ;  whereupoij 

R 


some  of  the  Pharisees  paid — 'This  fe'low  do-h  not  cast  out  dev- 
il-., jutbv  tiL-i/iejub  Mie  prine  of  devils.'  From  Ciin;-t^  t.v.  n 
argument  it  appear!*,  that  the  Phaiiseet  ha  i  the  most  glaiii;g 
evideii.  e,  thai  Satan  would  not  cast  uut  Satan.  Malth.  12, 
24.  26  AkhiiUgh,  Chris;  ejected  ('evils  b\  the  agency  o.  itie 
H  ■  y  Spir;^,  and  tae  Pnarisees  kn.>\ving  it  ;  yet  thuy  most 
maheioLisly  represented  tliis  ag'-ncy  «.f  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  of 
B  ;lz  -bub  ttie  p  ince  of  .leviis.  In  this  manner  they  comnht- 
ted  ilii-  sin.  Tn^s  is  the  more  evident  fiom  the  description 
given  by  St  Mcirk,  ch.  §,  28  -  80— 'Verily  I  say  unto  you.  all 
sins  shall  be  iorgiven  unto  the  sons  ol  men,  and  blasphemies 
wh^-rewith  soever  they  shall  blaspheme  :  but  he  that  shall 
b  aspheme  against  the  Holy  Gnost  hath  never  forgiveness, 
bat  IS  m  danger  of  eternal  damnarion  :  because  they  said.  He 
hath  an  unclean  Spirit.'  Obst^rve  :  because  the  Pharisees 
said  he  had  an  unclean  Spirit,  and  by  whom  he  cast  out  dev- 
ils, he  call-,  this  the  blasphemy  aiiamst  the  Hul}  Ghost.  Je- 
sus in  order  to  prove  himself  the  Messiah,  that  the  people 
might  believe  in  him^  he  wrought  miracles  through  the  H<  'y 
Soirit.  But  as  the  Pharisees  representtd  the  oftice  of  the  bo- 
ly  Ghost,  by  which  only  they  could  be  led  to  believe  in  Christ, 
that  of  Belzebub,  they  v  jluntarily  placed  themselves  into  such 
a  situation  that  they  coul  1  not  be  pardoned.  Not  that  unbe- 
lief is  this  sin,  for  many,  who  otjce  were  unbelievers  embra- 
ced the  faith  in  Christ,  and  were  eminent  Chi-istians.  As 
this  blasphemy  consists  in  calling  the  operations  of  the  H'  iy 
Spirit,  those  of  the  devil ;  hence  such  as  have  committed  it,  have 
rejected  the  only  agency  by  which  they  could  get  to  believe. 
The  office  of  the  spirit  is  to  revea!  and  iiloriiy  Christ — 1  Cor. 
12,  3—  "2  Cor.  3,  6  8 — Avithout  which  no  r  an  could  ever  get 
to  believe  and  be  saved.  Ko  marve'  therefoie,  that  such  as 
have  by  so  horrid  a  b'asphemy  rejected  the  Holy  Ghost,  can- 
not be  pardoned  Men  by  conmitting  othcf  sins,  do  not  so 
dire-tly  i-eject  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ;  hence  he  may 
eff 'ct  repen'ance,  a  pardon,  and  salvation  Some  indeed  ii  Jiy 
ge'  lost,  A  ho  never  committed  this  sin,  in  cons-equ  nee  of  their 
impenit'^nce  ;  yet  not  because  it  was  impossible  lor  them  to 
have  be-n  Siived.  .« 

St,  M  itthevv  says,  'And  whosoevrr  speaketh  a  word  a- 
gainst  th  •  S'>n  of  man,  it  sh  .11  be  foraiven  him  :  but  \Ahoso- 
ever  soeak'  th  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  shall  not  be  foriiven 
hi  "H,  nether  in  this  world,  neither  in  tl-e  \^orld  to  come.'  eh; 
32,  .S2.  What  is  to  he  understi^od  by  this  id  rid.  and  Iht 
ton  V/  to  com  ?  M  mv  may  understand  by  fhh  ivxrld.  the 
present  state,  in  which  men  now  Jive^  and  by  tht  ivortd  to 


come,  eternity  after  the  day  of  judgment.  It  is  admitted  that 
ill  some  to  ^t->,  thewurld  to  come  b.giiiiifs  et  rnity  aUei  the 
day  ot  judgment.  But  it  cannot  siyiiity  this  in  tiie  text,  \^  liu  h 
I  t'lave  quoted  The  word  ai^v  sigiuties  an  age  ot  a  Imoied 
duration,  as  well  as  eternity  alter  the  day  of  judgment.  As 
for  instance  in  Mutth.  28,  "/O,  the  word  world  evidently  ul- 
lu  les  to  th'^  age  of  the  gospel  dispensation.  This  world,  and 
the  world  to  come,  was  a  Jewish  phrase,  and  denoted  tlie 
aire  before,  and  that  a:ter  the  Me»siuh.  Now  if  %\  e  under- 
stand this  world,  and  the  world  to  con.e,  to  relate  to  the  a{.e3 
before,  and  alter  the  Messiah,  the  conelusiun  mustbe,theie 
is  no  pardon  for  this  sin.  ne.ther  under  the  old  testan^ent  dis- 
pensaiion,  which  was  then  at  its  eve,  nor  under  the  new, 
which  was  near  at  hand. 

Su'h  as  suppose  thut  the  phrase  -the  world  to  come,'  in  this 
text  aliudestothe  state  after  the  final  judgn  cnt,  mustalst ,  and 
necessarily  conclude  that  sins  mny  then  be  lOrgiven  ;  because 
the  sin  against  ihe  Ho'y  Gnost  is  parti.-ulariy  excepted,  as 
not  to  be  forgiven.  I  no  >^in  at  all  should  be  forgiven  in  the 
world  to  ''Ofne,  it  wou'd  be  use  es>  to  ■  xeept  thiS  one  sii  as 
unpardona^^le.  He  tbut  excepts  on<"  sin  as  unpaidonahle  in 
th  •  world  to  com-',  wishes  to  be  understood  that;.li  other  sins 
may  be  pardoned.  But  who  can  b-.'iieve,  that  any  sin  shall 
be  pardoned  a  ter  th*  da}  of  judgn  cnt  ?  Al!  v\ho  vseie  iiot 
p-.-eviously  pardoned  will  bo  puni-hed,  and  he  that  is  punished 
for  a  crime,  is  not  forgiven.  St.  Mark  says,  'But  he  that 
shall  bla.sph'me  against  the  Hol\  Ghost  hath  never  orgive- 
ness,  but  is  in  danger  o!  eternal  damnation.''  ch.  g,  29  The 
word  cvoxoi,  which  is  translated  danger,  a'so  signifies  to  be 
subject  to,  or  deserving o',  or  gnilty  oi.  Now  he  that  is  sub- 
jc'zt  to. or  deserves  eternal  damnation,  is  certainly  in  danger  of  it. 
If  the  b'asphemer  against  the  Holy  Ghost  sha'l  have  no  torgive- 
ne~s,  neitht  r  in  this  wi  rid.  nor  in  the  world  to  come,  but  is 
in  dang'  r  of  eternal  damnation  ;  and  if  the  world  to  come 
meant  the  state  after  th<  day  oi  judgment,  how  could  any  one 
be  in  danger  ot  eternal  damnation  ?  A 'ter  the  judgement  no 
one  will  be  in  dansier  of,  but  all  unb<  lieveis  then,  wi'l  expi  ri- 
en -e  et«*rn»'  damnat'on  To  be  in  danger  of  meeting  with  a 
iflisTortune,  and  to  experience  it  is  not  the  same.  Or  to  be 
subject  to,  and  really  to  experience  eternal  damnation  is  not 
the  same.  A  man  may  be  in  danger,  and  yet  escape  ;  and 
so  may  a  culprit  be  subject  to  be  executed,  and  yet,  by  som.e 
means  escape. 

Th"re  were  sundry  sins  under  the  Mosaic  di«ppn«:ation,  for 
which  the  offender  could  not  be  pardoned.    See  ISuin.  15,  §@ 


132 

gl.  eh.  35,  SI.  Lev.  20,  10.  1  Sam.  2,  25.  But  it  appears 
there  is  only  one  sm  under  the  gospel,  that  is  unpardonable* 
As  the  unpardonable  sins  under  ihe  law,  were  only  punished 
in  the  b>  ly  of  the  otfender,  mercy  might  be  extended  to  the 
soul.  The  unpardonable  sin  under  the  gospel  dispensation 
must  a.so  subject  the  oftender  to  a  bodily  punishment,  which 
he  cann  Jt  escipe  ;  not  withstand  ;ng  his  soul  may  be  saved,  be- 
cause he  is  only  in  danger  of  eternal  damnation.  The  text 
thus  viewed  the  blasphemer  against  the  Holy  Ghost  had  no 
pai'di)n  uniier  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  nor  under  the  gospel, 
but  met  with  an  awful  bodily  pun'.shment,  and  withal  was  in 
danijer  of  eternal  •Umnation.  The  majority  of  the  Jews  re- 
jected Jesus  ;  n  )twithstanding  the  miracles  he  wrought  ;  hence 
the  undeniable  testimonies  of  his  Messiahship.  But  did  they 
not  meet  with  the  most  awful,  temporal  judgments  ?  Let 
this  be  verified  by  the  tragical  scenes  of  the  destruction  of  Je- 
rusalem. Si.  Paul  delivered  Hymenius  and  Alexander  unto 
Satan,  that  they  might  learn  not  to  blaspheme.  1  Tim  1,  20. 
See  Heb.  10,  26  -  31.  As  the  world  to  come  in  this  text  im- 
plies the  dispensation  of  the  gospel,  it  is  evident  the  blasphe- 
mer against  the  Holy  Ghost  is  punished  already  before  the 
day  of  judgment  ;  hence  he  must  receive  bodily  punishments  ; 
and  though  he  is  in  danger  of  eternal  damnation  ;  yet  is  he 
not  beyond  the  reach  of  the  atoning  blood  of  Christ  v\ith  re- 
spect to  the  eternal  state,  because  one,  who  only  is  in  danger^ 
j33ay  yet  escape.     Nevertheless  his  escape  may  be  difficult. 


JMPROVEMEHT. 


What  dishonouring  views  many  entertain  with  respect  to 
ihe  moral  law  of  God  !  They  imagine,  if  they  do  as  much 
towards  its  fulfilment  as  their  corrupted  nature  allows  them, 
that  God  will  forgive  their  former  crimes.  But  as  they  view 
the  law  according  to  their  sinful  imagination,  they  conceive 
their  supposed  good  endeavours  are  sufficient.  This  is  the 
reason,  why  the  atonement  of  Jesus  is  so  little  valued  ;  ^^lly 
his  amazing  love  in  laying  down  his  Hie  for  the  guilty  meets 
fvith  so  few  returns  of  gratitude. 

JMany  of  those  who  deny  that  Christ  made  an  atonement, 
consider  sins,  as  natural  actions,  from  ^^hich  arise  nothing 
but  natural  consequences.  Hence  imagine  if  the  sinner  only 
repents,  and  turns  from  his  evil  ways,  the  consequences  v>  ill 
.cease,  3,i)(i  all  he  amended.    They  suppose  that  God  treats 


1S3 

the  sinner  like  a  physician  his  patient — the  physician  is  not  of- 
fended at  his  sickness,  but  gives  him  medicine,  and  picsciip- 
lions  of  his  regimen  ;  and  if  lie  use  the  raedicuie  as  prescribed 
he  may  recover  ;  but  otherwise  he  must  die  i'lius  God  is 
not  offended  at  a  man's  transgressions,  but  views  him  v\  ith  ten- 
der  compassion,  and  devises  means  to  change  his  mind  ;  and 
if  he  obe\  s  he  may  become  happy,  but  otherwise  he  must  re- 
main miserable. 

This  supposition  is  true  in  part,  as  it  is  evident  that  sin  pro- 
duces such  natural  eftVcts  as  render  the  sinner  miserable.,  e\  en 
if  no  other  punishment  should  be  inflicted  upon  him  ;  yet  that 
no  other  consequence  should  fallow  sin,  is  erroneous. 

Let  us  suppose  that  a  man  accidently  threw  a  tile  from  a 
building,  and  by  it  killed  another  one.  This  action  uould  on- 
ly be  attended  by  natural  consequences,  i.  e.  the  death  ol  the 
man,  the  widowhood  of  his  wile,  and  the  orphanage  ol  his 
children.  But  suppose  the  tile  to  have  been  thrown  with  a 
malicious  design  to  kill,  the  natural  consequences  would  be 
the  same,  but  would  not  also  other  consequences  foUou  ? 
The  man  that  threw  the  tile  with  this  design,  would  be  view- 
ed as  a  murderer  ;  the  consequence  of  this  act  vsoiJd  be  ot  a 
moral  nature  ;  for  he  would  be  adjudged  to  sufter  a  legal  pe- 
nalty. As  the  law  of  God  is  a  rule  of  moral  rectitude,  those 
that  transgress  it,  must  meet  with  moral  consequences,  i.  e. 
such  punishments  as  are  to  be  inflicted  by  a  legal  sentence. 

If  sinners  were  not  subject  to  suffer  a  penalty  pronounced 
by  a  divine  judgment,  and  if  the  natural  consequences  ol  sin 
were  the  only  punishment,  it  would  be  useless  for  the  penitent, 
when  he  prays  for  a  new  heart ;  also  to  pray  for  the  forgive- 
ness of  his  sins.  A  man  who  by  his  intemperance  has  disea- 
sed his  body,  does  not  beg  the  physician  for  pardon,  but  sim- 
ply for  his  advice,  that  he  might  recover  his  health.  Would 
it  not  be  absurd  to  say,  because  the  physician  cured  his  patient, 
that  therefore  he  had  forgiven  his  sins  ?  If  God  only  treated 
the  sinner,  like  a  physician  his  patient,  it  could  not  with  any 
propriety  be  said  that  he  pardons  crimes.  David  the  king  of 
Israel,  did  not  merely  beseech  the  Lord  to  create  in  him  a 
clean  heart  ;  but  also,  to  blot  out  all  his  iniquities.  Ps.  51,  9- 
12.  The  latter  he  calls  the  forgiveness  of  transgression,  the 
sin  covered,  and  the  iniquity  not  imputed.     Ps  §2,  1,  2. 

There  are  sundry  words  in  the  scriptures,  which  represent 
a  punishment  due  to  sin  originating  from  a  judinal  sentence* 
In  the  old  testament  the  word  D{J»{<,  and  HOtJ'N  signifies 
a  trespass,  which  deserves  God's  \\  rath  and  punisnment.  See 
^en.  26, 10.    %  Chfon,  28,  18.    Hence  this  word  is  also  ap- 


134 

plied  to  a  sacrifice,  by  which  guilt  is  removed.  See  1  Sam. 
Q.  %  i.  L'^v.  7,  1,  2.  In  the  new  testament  we  iiave  ipoxoi^ 
an  I  vrtoSfcxoj.  The  ibi  raer  is  used  by  St.  James  eh  2,  10 — 
'F)!"  whosoever  shall  keep  the  wh  >le  law,  and  yet  uttend  in 
one  point,  he  is  guiity  of  all/  This  plainly  indicates  that  the 
transgressor  is  under  a  legal  sentence.  The  latter  occuis  in 
Rjm  3,  19 — 'that  all  the  world  may  become  guilty  wnobixog) 
before  God.'  Wliich  the  apostle  ch.  5  16,  calls  the  juugmcnt 
unto  condemnation  Judgment  and  condemnation  are  ioren- 
sick  tprm^:,  and  vrfoSixoj  properly  si<^nifies  one  arraigned,  or 
impleaded  -in  judgment. 

A.S  all  men  are  guilty,  hence  they  are  all  under  condemna- 
tion ;  and  ha  1  not  Oirist  be.'ome  a  sacrifice  forth(  ir  sins,  they 
could  never  be  a-quitted.  But  what  a  nazing  Uao  uas  mani- 
fested by  Jesus  C iirist  in  this  respect !  O  my  soul  !  love  hinw 
who  first  loved  thee  ! 


FRAGMENT   IV. 

f^  IS  shewn  that  the  sinnsr  is  justified  by  the  imputation  of  God's  righteous* 
nesd  ;  hence  not  by  an  implanted  gvace. 

When  we  speak  of  the  righteousness  of  God,  we  mean  a 
righteousness  which  is  distinct  from  that  of  the  law.  'F-t 
Moses  describeth  the  righteousness  which  is  oi  the  lav\ .  that 
the  man  which  doeth  th^^se  things  shall  live  by  them.'  Rem, 
10,  S.  The  law  is  a  ru  e  of  righteousness,  hence  if  a  man 
would  keep  it,  he  would  be  righte<>us  ;  and  thus  he  would  be 
justified  by  the  righteousness  of  the  law.  And  as  the  obedi- 
ence to  the  law  would  be  a  man's  own  act,  it  is  therefore,  also 
called  his  own  righteousness. 

Bat  we  read  that  the  'righteousness  of  God  without  the  law 
is  manifested,  being  witnessed  by  the  law  and  the  prophets  ; 
even  the  righteousn  'ss  of  God,  ivhich  in  by  faith  of  Jesus 
C'irist  unto  all,  and  upon  ail  them  that  believe,  &c.'  Rom. 
8.  21,  22  God  is  righteous  from  eternity,  and  righteousness 
is  essential  to  his  character.  But  he  being  righteousness  in  the 
original,  would  n  )t  bi^  a  sufficient  ground  to  justify  a  sinner  ; 
it  would  rather  result  in  his  condemnation  ;  lor  rightcousncis 
an  1  guilt  are  far  op-i^site  to  eaeh  other.  The  apostle  snith 
'Butof  hiin  are  ye  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  of  God  ji>  made  uoto 


135 

us  wisdom,  and  righteousness,  and  sanctification,  and  re- 
dcniption.'  1  Cor.  i,  SO  Christ  beiii^  n  ade  unto  us  wis. 
do  ,  and  righteousnts^,  &c.  shews  that  he  v^as  not  always 
from  eternity  our  nisdini,  and  rightiousmss  ;  &c.  because 
that  which  is  from  eternity  has  no  c'dniirinctment  ;  hence  can. 
not  bo  made  in  the  progress  ot  tinic.  In  the  lulness  ot  time 
the  Si)n  of  God  was  made  flesh,  put  him^el!  under  the  law  ; 
aud  by  his  obedi  nee  wrought  oui  a  righteousness.  He  be- 
ing J.^hovah,  hence  supreme,  eternal  righteousness  in  the  self- 
original,  his  obedience  to  'he  lav\  could  not  be  to  adorn,  and 
justify  his  own  character,  either  in  the  sight  of  his  F.ither,  or 
in  that  of  holy  angels  :  for  what  act  ol  obedience  can  justify 
self  original  righteousness?  Htnce  as  his  obedience  to  the 
law  was  not  necessary  to  justify  himsel!,  it  is  evident  that  it 
was  rendered  to  justifj'  sinners.  Whereas  God  prepared 
Ciirist  as  a  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  world,  and  he  being 
G  » 1  himself,  and  as  his  meritorious  obeditnce  in  his  incarnate 
state  procured  a  righteousness  ;  it  is  therefore,  properly  called 
God's  own  righteo(isne<HS  The  prophet  speaks  of  this  righte- 
Gusness — 'In  his  days  Judah  shall  be  saved,  and  Isiael  shall 
dwell  sa'ely  ;  and  this  is  his  name  vs  hereby  he  shall  be  cal- 
led, THK  LoauouR  RIG HTEou s^ Ess,'  J  rem.  23,6.  That 
this  has  an  allusion  to  Christ  as  a  Saviour,  is  evident  from  the 
preceding  verse: — 'Behold,  the  days  come,  saith  the  I^ord, 
that  I  wi'l  raise  unto  David  a  righteous  Bianch,  and  a  King 
shall  reign  and  prosper,  and  shall  execute  judgment  in  the 
earh.' 

The  doctrine  of  imputation  is  founded  in  the  scriptures,  as 
well  as  in  the  common  affairs  of  life.  One  man's  deeds, 
whether  they  be  g>od,  or  evil  may  be  impu  ed  to  another: 
provided  he  consents  to  the  same  ;  and  when  they  are  impu- 
ted they  are  considered  as  if  they  w  ere  his  own.  St.  Paul 
exhorts  Timothy  *not  to  be  a  p  irtuker  of  other  men's  sins,' 
1  Ti  n.  5,  22.  This  may  be  done  through  official  negligence, 
improper  silence,  and  advice.  Even  the  crimes  of  those,  that 
lived  in  former  ages  may  be  imputed  to  succeding  generations. 
Our  Saviour  sa3's  *l  send  unto  you  prophets,  and  wise  riien, 
and  scribes  :  and  some  of  them  ye  shall  kill  and  crucify  ;  and 
507716  ol  them  shall  ye  scourge  in  your  synagogues,  and  per- 
secute them  from  city  to  city  :  that  upon  you  may  come  all 
the  righti  ous  b'ood  shed  upon  the  earth,  from  the  blood 
of  righteous  Abel,  unto  the  blood  of  Zacharias  son  of  Bara- 
chias,  whom  ve  slew  between  the  temple  and  the  altar/ 
Matth.  23,  84,  35.  Now  Abel,  and  Cain  who  murdered 
him^  lived  many  centui'ies  before  the  Jews,  whom  Christ  ad^. 


136 

dressed  ;  yet  he  decUred  that  Cain^s  sin  should  come  apon 
them.  Why  so  ?  Ans.  The  Jews  manifested  Cain's  mind, 
and  works  ;  instead"  of  abhorring  his  example,  they  repre- 
sented his  person  in  'their  bloody  conduct  towards  Christ,  and 
many  others  oi  the  holy  martyrs.  In  this  manner  they  be- 
came partakers  ot  the  first  murder  that  ever  was  committed. 

In  like  manner  another's  good  deeds  may  be  imputed.  God 
shews  mercy  unto  thousands  of  them  that  love  him,  and  keep 
his  commandments.  Exod  20,  6 — comp.  ch.  34,  7.  Thus 
the  laudable  deeds  of  ancestors  may  be  imputed  to  their  pos- 
terity. This  is  done,  when  their  posterity  imitate  them  in 
the  same  mind,  by  which  they  get  into  connexion  with  their 
deeds  ;  and  thus  enjoy  more  ample  blessings  than  they  could 
otherwise  expect.  Thus  we  read  that  the  righteous  deed  of 
Phinehas  was  imputed  to  his  seed  after  him.  ISum.  25,  7- 
18— comp.  Ps.   106,  30,  31. 

Imputation  frequently  takes  place  in  the  common  affairs  of 
Jile.  As  for  instance  :  another's  wealth,  valour,  and  wisdom 
may  be  imputed.  I  may  have  an  other's  wealth  made  my 
own  by  an  heirship — when  vaiient  heroes  in  the  field  of  bat- 
tle obtain  the  victory  over  their  enemies,  it  is  imputed  to  their 
governments — the  wise  conduct  of  guardians  is  considered  the 
same  as  if  it  were  that  of  the  orphans. 

As  it  is  evident  that  the  deeds  of  another  person,  whether 
they  be  good,  or  evil  may  be  imputed  to  us,  it  is  not  incon- 
sistent to  conclude  that  the  meritorious  obedience  of  Christ 
may  also  be  imputed  to  us.  But  this  imputation  takes  place, 
not  by  an  imitation  of  Christ  ;  but  by  faith.  'For  what  saith 
the  scripture  ?  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was  counted 
to  him  for  righteousness.'  Rom.  4,  3.  In  this  respect  the 
imputation  of  Christ's,  righteousness  is  somewhat  different 
from  the  imputation  of  other  men's  acts. 

As  Abraham  believed  God,  it  is  evident  that  he  believed 
the  promise  made  to  him  with  respect  to  the  Messiah  ;  thus 
the  object  of  his  faith  was  counted  to  him  for  righteousn^•ss. 
Again — v.  23  and  24  the  apostle  shews,  that  not  only  Abra- 
ham was  justified  by  an  act  of  imputation,  but  that  we  also 
may  be  justified  in  the  same  manner. — ^Now  it  was  not  writ- 
ten for  his  sake  alone,  that  it  was  imputed  to  him  ;  but  for  us 
also,  to  whom  it  shall  be  imputed,  if  we  believe  on  him  that 
raised  up  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the  dead.' 

This  imputation  takes  place  by  faith,  not  because  faith  is  an 
amiable  disposition  of  the  mind,  or  an  equivalent  for  the  grace 
that  is  given  ;  but  because  it  is  a  condition  of  apprehension. 
Faith  has  Jesus  Christ  for  its  object.    In  so  far  as  it  has  a  re- 


137 

lation  to  him  as  its  object,  in  so  far,  by  it  righteousfless  is  im- 
puted. Faitii  dpprelieiids  Christ,  hence  by  it  ins  lightcou&ness 
IS  iiiiputed.  As  !itt!e  as  the  servant's  petition,  who  owed  bis 
king  ten  thousand  talents  merited  the  remission  oi  his  debt — 
Math.  IB.  2-i  27  ;  so  I  ttle  faith  merits  the  ri«hteousness  w  bich 
is  imputed  by  it.  Neither  was  the  servant's  ready  consent  to 
accept  this  pardon,  a  meritorious  cause  thereof ;  alihough  w  iih- 
out  it  he  could  not  have  been  a  partaker  of  the  pardon.  ]So 
deed  can  ju-itly  b*  imputed  to  another  one,  without  his  con- 
sent  ;  nor  can  a  isjift  be  possessed  by  another  one,  exce[)t  it  be 
received  ;  yet  the  consent  does  not  merit  the  deed,  nor  the. 
mere  receiving-,  the  oftered  gift.  By  *aith  we  consent  t(  .  and 
receive  the  meritorious  obedience  of  Christ.  An  unbehever 
cannot  be  saved,  notwi  hstiinding  he  is  ransomed  by  Chris', 
an  I  invited  to  embrace  him  ;  because  he  rejects  the  righteous- 
ness, which  would  otherwise  be  imputei]  to  him — 'He  that  be- 
lieveth  not  shall  be  datnned.'  Mark  16.  16.  As  laith,  in  ^^o 
far  as  it  respects  our  justification,  is  a  mere  conditi(  n  o*  tbe 
imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness,  and  that  being  perfect  ; 
for  as  much,  as  it  is  that  ot  God  manifested  in  the  tlesh  we 
are  justified  by,  and  clothed  with  a  righteousness,  so  peifect, 
an  I  beautiful,  that  the  heaven'y  Father  can  find  no  blemish. 

In  a  social  connexion,  the  virtues,  or  crimes  of  an'  ther 
may  be  imputed.  Or  to  the  members  of  a  body,  the  pioptr- 
tif'S  of  the  principa'  may  be  attributed.  Christ  is  the  head, 
ani  his  church  the  body.  Eph.  1,  22,  28.  'For  we  are  t'  em- 
bers of  his  body,  of  his  flesh,  and  of  his  b»>nes.'  eh.  5.  W. 
T  ms  wt^  see,  that  ail  the  members  are  connected  with  C/h-isfc 
their  head.  All  the  wisdom,  and  erudition  in  the  head  of  a 
man  are  ascribed  to  his  whole  body  For  instance  we  say, 
this  is  a  learned  man  ;  a'though,  we  know  that  his  hand's, 
feet,  and  other  members  ate  not  the  seat  of  his  erudition  as 
th.it  is  in  the  head  ;  yet  the  connexion  of  all  the  meml>e  s 
with  the  head,  causes  that  they  are  viewed  together  a?  one, 
and  the  properties  of  the  principal  i.  e.  'he  head  ascribed  to  all 
of  them.  All  believers  are  connected  with  Christ,  and  \'  ith 
him  constitute  a  moral,  social  person  ;  hence  in  him  they  are 
viewed  bv  the  Father,  as  a  perfect  man,  rit  hte<  us  and  spotless. 
Or,  as  the  apost  e  expresses  it — 'Till  we  all  come  in  the  unity 
of  the  faith,  and  of  tbe  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God,  unto  a 
pf^r^ect  man,  unto  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  tbe  li'nes  of 
Christ '  Eph.  4.  IS  Thu-  it  may  easily  be  understood  hovv 
the  perfect  righteou-ness  ot  God  is  imputed  by  faith,  and  how 
we  are  airayed  with  the  garment  of  saHat'on 

The  sinner  is  justified  by  the  imputation  oi  God's?  righteous-^ 

S 


138 

ne&s.  It  so,  he  is  not  justified  by  any  grace  that  the  Holy 
Sp'iiit  may  implant  in  the  lieart  to  create  it  aneu  ;  l>ecause  it  is 
a'osurd  to  suppose  that  the  meritorious  deeds  of  anoiher  should 
be  implanted.  T.iey  only  may  be  imputed.  Whatever  i^  im- 
puted, does  not  take  place  in,  but  out  oi  the  pe.son  to  whom  it 
is  imputed  The  sumer  is  not  justiiied  by  an  infusiin  ot  the 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Sj)irit,  to  ci¥eet  the  renovation  ol  the  heart. 
Let  thi-  be  clearly  understviod.  The  question  is  not,  whether 
tile  iijiy  Sp>;it  in  uses  his  gifts  to  renovate  the  heart,  as  this  is 
reaiily  admitted  ;  bat  whether  by  this  infusion,  and  renovaticm 
the  sinner  gets  justified  ?  That  a  sinner  is  not  justified  by  this 
impiaiitcd  grac^,  is  evident  from  the  following  rt-asons  : 

i  G  )  1  is  t'le  jadg^"  of  a'l  men  ;  hence  he  ju  'ges  all  either  as 
just,  or  unjust.  He  is  omniscient ;  hence  can  never  be  mis- 
taken in  his  jadgin.mt.  He  is  the  fountain  of  truth;  hence  he 
cann  )i  judge  a  thing  to  be  what  it  is  not.  The  grace  that  is 
impUniel  in  the  heart  is  resisted  by  the  flesh,  Tor  the  flesh 
lustr.th  against  the  Spirit.  &c.  Gal  5,17;  and  sin  even  easily 
besets  tiie  saints,  Heb.  12,  1.  W  hi!>t  in  a  saint  the  Spirit,  and 
the  fl^sh  are  at  war  with  each  other,  the  former  has  not  yet 
gained  the  victory  over  the  latter;  and  thus  the  righteousness 
in  the  heart  is  very  imperfect.  Now  to  sup})ose  that  God 
should  ju  Ig^  this  implanted  grace,  (which  being  resisted  by 
the  tiesh  does  not  work  a  perfect  righteousness,)  as  perfect, 
would  be  to  suppose  that  he  either  was  mistaken  in  his  judg- 
ment, or  contrary  to  his  veracity  wou'd  account  that  which 
was  s'lurious  as  genuine.  To  suppose  either,  would  be  absurd. 
As  G  )d  cannot  judge  such  an  imperfect  work  as  perfect,  the 
ini'used  grace  cannot  possibly  be  the  cause  of  a  sinnei-'s  justifica- 
tion. But  the  righteousness  which  Christ  wrought  out  is  per- 
fect ;  hence  if  that  be  imputed  to  the  sinner  by  faith,  he  is  cloth- 
ed with  a  righteousness  that  is  all-periect. 

2»  The  apo-^tle  argues  'that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  with- 
out the  deeds  of  the  law.'  Rom.  3,  28 — comp.  Eph.  2.  8,  9. 
As  the-^e  texts  exclude  all  legal  works  in  the  aiticle  of  our  jus- 
tifi  "ation,  it  follows  that  the  implanted  grace  must  be  equidl}' 
excluded.  When  the  blf^ssed  Spirit  produces  meekness,  hu- 
mility, love,  &c.  in  the  heart,  they  are  works  of  the  law.  They 
are  pronerly  called  the  works  of  the  law,  because  it  is  the  rule 
asrreea^de  to  which  they  are  performed.  All  those  good  graces 
wrou2:ht  by  the  Spirit,,  agree  with  the  law ;  if  they  did  not, 
they  would  be  wronff ;  hence  they  are  properly  the  work-  of 
the  law.  We  are  not  justified  by  the  works  of  the  law,  and 
as  (hose  infused  srraecs  are  works  of  the  law,  it  is  evident  that 
we  arc  not  justified  by  such  a  gracious  infusion. 


139 

3.  A  siniiRr  is  not  only  under  condemnation,  but  sin  also,i.!9 
Its  natural  consequenres  renders  hint  extreme.}'  n-iMiable.- 
As  little  a>  tiro  thai  iS  nourishe<l  by  luel,  can  exti^gui^h  ilseitj 
s)  litt;e  the  sinner  by  his  own  abiliiy,  can  bubdue  his  sinlu!  de- 
sires. To  quench  tlie  fire  lequires  a  diltereni  elemtnt  ;  aiid 
to  subdu'^  so,  anti  arrest  its  baneiul  eft'i-cts  requires  the  Kt!y 
SjDirit.  H.'  is  the  medicine  tu  cure  this  the  wur^t  oi  ail  n.ahi- 
dies,  which  otherwise  is  incurable.  Tt*  giant  and  aj  ply  (his 
medicine,  to  restrain,  and  finally  to  eradicate  this  distusc,  is 
the  mi)*t  invaluable  ot'all  blessings.  But  the  man  who  is  nofc 
ju^titi'^d,  is  un  ler  the  curse  ;  hence  he  catmot  be  blessed,  as  it 
would  be  absurd  to  suppose  a  man  at  the  sane  time,  and  in 
the  same  re'ation,  to  be  both  blessed  and  cursed.  Heme,  as 
this  implanted  grace  of  the  Si)iiit  is  an  invaluable  blessii'g  ; 
and  it' it  should  be  granted  to  an  unjustified  man,  who  as  such 
is  cursed,  it  wou'd  follow,  tiiat  he  was  both  blessed  and  cur- 
s^'d,  which  would  be  self-contradictory.  Thus  it  is  evident, 
that  this  inward  grace  is  not  bestowed  u})on  an  unjustihed 
man.     As  he  is  an  enemy  to  God,  he  must  first  be  reconciled. 

But  to  this  it  might  be  objected,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  must 
operate  on  a  sinner  by  th'  gospel-ministry,  even  beiore  he 
can  believe,  and  thus  be  justified.  1  answer,  although  the 
Spirit  operates  on  a  sinner  by  the  gospel-ministry  ;  yet  not  to 
infuse  his  graces,  nor  create  his  heart  anew  ;  but  only  to  in- 
duce him  to  believe,  and  thus  be  reconciled  to  God  ;  and  that 
hence,  he  may  be  m  such  a  relation,  as  to  receive  this  inward 
blessing.  There  is  a  diiYerence  between  offering  an  enemy 
proposals  of  reconciliation,  and  granting  him  the  blessings  of 
citizen-ship.  Are  not  the  ministers  ol  the  gospel  ambassadors 
for  Christ,  in  his  stead  to  beseech  sinners  to  be  r«con"i'ed  to 
God  r  Even  before  the  offer  of  reconciliation  could  be  made 
by  the  gospel-ministry,  the  redemption  of  Christ,  by  which  all 
sinners  have  a  right  to  be  justified,  is  presupposed.  Sinners 
must  first  embrace  this  right,  and  become  triends  to  God,  be- 
fore this  inward  blessina:  ""an  be  granted. 

Where  the  Holy  Ghost  has  implanted  his  graces  in  the 
heart,  there  must  be  life  and  salvatiori.  'The  fruit  of  the  Spir- 
it is  love,  joy,  peace,  long  suffering,  gentleness,  goodness, 
faith,  meekness,  temperance:  against  such  there  is  no  law.' 
Gal.  5,  22.  23.  Now  whi^n  the  Spirit  in  the  heart  has  pro- 
duced  those  blessed  fruits,  against  which  there  is  no  ]a.v< ,  there 
must  already  be  a  source  of  felicity,  and  the  anticipation  ol  the 
sweets  in  the  regions  o*"  fflory.  If  we  have  those  graces  of 
the  Spirit,  against  which  thi-re  is  no  law,  there  can  be  no 
eondenination  ;  and  where  there  is  no  condemnation^  there 


140 

must  be  life  and  salvation.  Where  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  are, 
there  is  also,  the  kingilorn  of  God  ;  and  that  is  'righteousness, 
and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  H  »ly  Ghost.'  Rom.  14,  17.  As 
those  in  used  graces  of  the  Spirit,  constitute  the  very  essence 
of  )ur  felicity  :  it  is  hence  impossible  for  any  one  thereby  to  be 
justified.  Because  if  we  were  saved  by  this  implanted  grace, 
it  would  be  the  same  as  to  say,  we  must  be  saved  that  we 
might  be  saved  ;  because  this  infused  grace  is  the  life  of  all 
ou- j:)ys  :  for  without  it,  the  climes  of  glory  would  iifford  us 
n  >  fcficity.  Those  blessed  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  enshrined  in 
the  heait,  are  an  immortal  souice  of  bliss,  and  consolation  ; 
so  that  tne  soul  walks  with  God,  in  sweet  communion  ;  not- 
withstanding it  is  assailed  by  many  temptations,  and  afflicted 
by  ouiward  tribulations.  As  it  wctuid  be  absurd  to  say,  that 
we  must  be  saved  to  be  saved,  it  is  evident  that  no  sinner  can 
be  justified  by  the  implanted  giace  of  the  Spirit.  Hence  the 
sinner  must  be  justified  by  having  the  righteousness  ot  Christ 
imputed  to  him  by  faith,  and  then  as  a  blessed  consequence, 
the  Spi  it  mfuses  his  graces  into  the  heart,  which  are  lite,  and 
salvation. 

4.  The  apostle  says  'Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace 
through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Chiist  Jesus.'  Ron  .  S.  24, 
In  the  original  we  have  fiixatou^fi/ot  gtopjav  t*;  aojirou  xo-^'-^- 
Ato^sar  which  is  used  as  an  adverb,  is  properly  the  accusative 
of  Sw^c-tt,  which  signifies  a  donation  ;  hence  the  obvious  st  n^'C 
is,  that  we  are  justifii  d  by  way  of  donation.  The  word  xo-^is 
which  is  trans'ated  Grfce,  alludes  to  a  favour  which  implies 
forgiveness.  Thus  the  word  is  used  in  other  texts,  as  for  in- 
st  nice  :  'To  whom  ye  forgive  any  thins:,  I  forgive  also  :  &c.' 
In  the  original — 'siiSe  it.  xa^t^taSt.  2  Cor  2,  10  'And  \\  hen 
th''y  had  nothing  to  pay,  he  frankly  forgave  (ijia^Kjato)  both,' 
Luke  7,  42.     Having  forgiven  you  all  trespasses.'     In  the  o- 

ri^?inal — ;j;agiflra/*ffOj  v/xiv   viavta,  tfa   rtapartttdftara.         Col.    2,    13, 

As  this  word  signifies  the  favour  or  gra  e  of  forgiveness,  and 
as  the  apo-.tle  says  that  by  it  we  are  justified  freely,  or  by 
w^ay  of  donation,  it  is  evident  that  we  are  not  justified  by  an 
infused  grace,  to  create  our  hearts  anevf.  But  had  the  apos- 
tle intended  to  convey  the  idea,  that  God  in'used  his  graces 
into  our  hearts,  by  \>  hich  we  might  be  justified,  his  phrase- 
ology would  have  been  different.  He  v\ou!d  not  have  said, 
that  we  are  justified  by  God's  grace  freely  ;  but  that  God  hisd 
put  his  Spirit  into  our  hearts,  by  which  we  should  be  justified. 
The  apostle  to  the  Ephesians,  eh  2.  4,  5  declares— '  But 
iGod  who  -s  rich  in  mercy,  for  his  great  love  \a  herev  ilh  he  lo- 
'^'^ed  U5^  even  when  we  were  dead  in  sins,  hath  quickened  us 


141 

together  with  Christ,  (by  grace  ye  are  saved  )  This  shews 
thai  whilst  a  e  were  dead  in  sin,  the  rich  mere  ,  and  the  great 
lovf  of  God  preceded  ;  and  is  hence  the  cause,  why  his  Spir- 
it has  quickened  us. 

Again — 'Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law, 
being  made  a  curse  for  us  :  for  h  is  wiitteu,  Cursed  is  eveiy 
one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree  :  that  the  blessing  of  Abraham 
might  come  on  the  Gentiles  through  Jesus  Christ  ;  that  we 
might  receive  the  promise  of  the  Spirit  through  faith,'  Gal. 
8,  13,  14.  How  plainly  this  text  indicaies  that  the  promise 
o'the  Spirit  is  to  be  received  by  fath.  By  faith  we  are  justi- 
fied, and  by  faith  we  receive  the  promise  of  the  Spirit  ;  hence 
we  are  justified,  before  we  receive  the  implanted  gifts  ol  the 
Spirit.     See  also  Gal.  4,  6. 

5  It  has  already  been  shewn  that  the  grace  infused  into  the 
heart,  is  yet  imperfect,  it  being  resisted  by  the  flesh  ;  hence 
as  it  only  gradua-ly  subdues  the  flesh,  so  it  also  increases.  But 
as  the  justification  of  a  sinner  consists  in  an  act  oi  pardon,  it 
cannot  be  increased  ;  because  not  only  one,  but  all  sins  are 
pardoned  :  for  if  one  should  be  excepted,  there  would  be  a 
ground  for  confjemnation  ;  if  so,  there  could  be  no  justification. 
That  justifi  ation  is  not  a  gradual  work,  is  also  evident  from 
Sundry  examples.     I  shall  only  mention  two  : 

1  The  publican.  He  prayed  in  the  temple  'God  be  mer- 
ciful to  me  a  sinner' ;  and  we  areiniormed,  that  he  went  dov  n 
justified  to  h's  h  juse  rather  than  the  Pharisee.  Thus  he  was 
immediately  justified  ;  hence  not  by  an  infused  grace,  to  cre- 
ate the  heart  anew.  It  requires  much  time,  before  the  new 
man  scets  the  ascendency  over  the  flesh.  The  publican  pray- 
ed  'Gjd  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner/  He  must  either  have 
believed  that  his  prayer  would  be  granted,  or  that  it  wou'd 
not.  Did  he  not  believe  it,  how  then  came  it  to  pass  that  he 
was  justified  ?  It  is  absurd  to  say,  that  an  unbeliever's  pray- 
er will  bv-  granted.  See  James  ch.  1,  6,  7.  But  did  the  pub- 
liean  believe  that  his  prayer  would  be  granted,  it  is  hence  evi- 
dent that  he  was  justified  by  the  imputation  of  God's  right- 
eousness. 

2.  The  malefactor  on  the  cross  When  he  was  suspended 
by  the  side  of  our  blessed  Saviour,  he  said  M  ord  remember 
me  when  thou  comest  into  thy  kingdom.'  By  this  he  expres- 
sed his  faith  in  Christ.  Though  he  saw  Christ  in  a  dying 
state,  yet  did  he  be'ieve  that  he  was  able  to  save  ;  hence  he 
must  have  anticipated  his  resurrection.  The  reply  of  our  Sa- 
viour was  'Verily  I  say  unto  thee,  To-day  shalt  thou  be  with 
!i>e  in  paradise.'     Luke  28,  42,  43.     Thus  as  the  malefactor 


142 

(being  confined  to  the  gibbet)  was  in  the  lowest  state  of  igno- 
miny, and  on  the  verge  of  eternal  destmction  ;  and  yet  irom 
thence,  that  same  day  was  exalted  into  paradise,  he  must  im- 
mediately have  been  justified  ;  hen.*e  not  by  the  implanted 
graces,  but  by  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness.  Al- 
though it  cannot  be  denied,  but  what  the  inward  grace  imme- 
diately succeeded  this  act  ot"  pardon,  and  commenced  its  bles- 
sed operations  ;  yet  as  that  is  never  so  perfect  in  this  life,  that 
G )  t  can  find  no  fault  in  it,  it  cannot  be  a  sufficient  ground  of 
the  justification  of  a  siuner» 


IMPROVEMENT. 


Justification  is  a  forens'ck  term,  and  signifies  the  acquittal 
of  a  person  that  is  impleaded  in  judgment.  It  may  either  im- 
ply a  person  that  is  acquitted,  because  he  proved  himself  inno- 
cent of  the  charge  ;  or  he  may  be  guilty,  and  yet,  treated  as  if 
he  were  innocent.  Thus  in  the  scriptures  : — 'He  that  justifi- 
eth  the  wicked,  and  he  that  con  Icmneth  the  just,  even  they 
both  are  abomination  to  the  Lord.'  Prov.  17,  15.  'Woe  un- 
to them  that  are  mighty  to  drink  wine,  and  men  of  strength 
to  mingle  strong  drink  :  which  justify  the  wicked  for  reward, 
and  take  away  the  righteousness  of  the  righteous  from  him  !* 
Isa.  5.  22,  2S.     Comp.  E\od.  28,  7.     Deut.  25,  1 

All  men  are  impleaded  in  the  divine  judgment,  declared 
guilty  ;  and  are  under  condemnation — for  'all  the  work!  is 
guilty  before  G>d  —  Rom.  3,  If^ — and  'judgment  tt>a.v  by  one 
to  condemnation — ch.  5,  16.  When  God  justifies  a  p«mitent 
sinner,  hr;  absolves  him  from  his  sentence  of  condemnation  : 
thus  he  flees  from  the  wrath  to  come  ;  or,  he  escapi  s  the  final 
execution  of  this  sentence  on  the  great  day  of  judgment. 
Notwithstanding,  to  justify  a  person  in  a  temporal  tribunal, 
signifies  to  acquit  him  of  the  crime  with  which  he  had  been 
charged  :  and  in  this  respect  the  justification  in  the  divine 
judgment  is  the  same  ;  yet  the  latter  includes  something  more, 
which  is  superlatively  benign,  and  glorious.  When  in  a  tem- 
poral tribunal,  the  culprit  is  even  acquitted,  and  hence  under 
no  dread  of  punishment  ;  yet  he  may  afterwards  be  reproach- 
ed,  an  indelible  disgrace  remains  affixed  to  his  character  ; 
hen'e  enjoys  no  moral  felicity.  But  when  God  justifies  the 
guiltv,  he  does  not  simply  absolve  him  from  the  sentence  of 
condemnation  ;  so  that  he  needs  not  to  fear  any  future  pun- 
ishments ;  but  he  also,  removes  every  disgrace^  which  would 


14^ 

•thenvise  indelibly  be  fixed  upon  his  character,  in  consequence 
of  his  tormer  Hansen  ssions.  Ihiis  ihe  sciipimet^  oecliiic — 
'Blesseii  arc  they  whose  iniquities  are  tti^ivti),  anciwl^csc 
sins  are  covered.'  Rom.  4,  7 — ccnp.  Ps.  i2,  1,  2.  'As;ar 
as  the  east  is  liom  the  west,  60  iar  hath  he  len  ovecl  oui  tians- 
gressions  trom  us.'  Ps.  108,  12.  ISow  il  cur  siiis  aie  not 
only  pardoned,  but  also  covered,  and  as  far  rtmoved  Inn  us 
as  the  east  is  trom  the  west,  nc  disgiace  lai  bt  aitr>buteo  tt  us 
on  their  aeeount  :  lor  what  is  eovi  red,  and  lar  ren  cvtd,  is  cut 
of  sight.  Again — 'Who  shall  lay  an}  thing  to  the  charge  of 
God's  elect  ?  It  is  God  that  jubtiiieth  :  v\  ho  is  he  that  con- 
demneth  ?  It  is  Christ  that  died,  yea  rather,  that  is  risen  a- 
gain.  who  is  even  at  the  right  hand  ot  God,  who  also  niaketh 
intercession  for  us.'     R(  m.  8^  Sy.  §4. 

The  ground  upon  which  the  siiiner  is  justified,  is  the  meri- 
torious obedience  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  was  uninterrupted  and 
perfect.  It  being  imputed  to  the  sinner  by  laith,  he  is  not  on- 
ly acquitted  from  the  sentence  of  condemnation,  but  is  also 
viewed  as  if  he  never  had  been  guity.  Ii  as  it  1  as  already 
been  shewn  the  deeds  of  another  person  may  be  in;puted  to 
us,  we  must  then  be  viewed  as  innocent,  when  Christ's  right- 
eousness is  imputed.  It  is  inspossible  natuia  iy  to  vitw  sin, 
as  if  it  never  had  been  committed  ;  hence  it  can  only  morally 
be  considered,  as  if  we  never  had  committed  it,  when  Christ's 
righteousness  is  imputed.  Although  sin  yet  remains  in  us, 
and  its  natural  consequences  may  only  measurably  be  arrested 
in  their  progress  by  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ;  yet  all 
the  moi-al  consequences  cease,  i.  e.  there  is  no  condemnation, 
no  disgrace  attached  to  our  persons  ;  we  are  viewed  as  inno- 
cent ;  and  are  privileged  to  associate  with  the  innumerable 
hosts  of  holy  angels. 

Since  we  are  justified  by  the  imputation  of  Christ's  right- 
eousness, it  requires  no  longer  time  to  complete  it  than  is  ne- 
cessary to  believe.  It  must  therefore  be  erroneous  to  spend 
much  time,  in  seeking  to  be  good,  or  preparing  ourselves 
with  legal  endeavours,  before  we  dare  venture  to  apprehend 
Christ  by  faith. 

What  multitudes  of  people,  who  for  a  number  of  years  have 
been  seeking  salvation  by  the  most  sincere  endeavours,  and 
yet,  have  not  obtained  it  !  What  may  be  the  reason  thereof? 
Is  it  because  God  has  not  received  a  sufficient  recompense  by 
their  good  works  ;  so  that  they  must  perform  more,  to  render 
themselves  acceptable  ?  No.  As  little  as  a  corrupted  tree  can 
produce  good  fruits,  so  little  they  as  unjustified  sinners,  can 
do  such  works,  and  even  if  they  could,  their  former  transgres. 


144 

sions  could  not  thereby  be  obliterated*  Is  it  because  God  is 
not  always  rea.iy,  when  the  gospel  is  preached  to  grant  tins 
salvation  ;  so  that  they  must  wait  lor  a  certain  time,  lor  him 
to  make  the  means  eft'ectual  ?  No.  Whenever  the  gospel  is 
preached  to  sinners,  God  is  ready  to  save,  to-day  is  the  ap- 
pointed time  :  tor  'Today  if  ye  will  hear  his  voice,  haiden 
not  your  hearts' — Heb.  4,  7.  The  apostle  saith  'the  goFpel 
of  Christ  is  the  power  o  God  unto  salvation  to  every  one  lliat 
believeth.'  Rom.  1  16.  He  does  not. say  that  the  gosptl 
will  be  made,  but  that  it  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  ; 
hence  his  blessed  S  )iiit  always,  and  inseparably  accompanies 
it  ;  so  that  there  is  no  deficiency  to  be  supplied  m  it.  See  Isa. 
5,  1-4,  The  word  ot  faith  is  nigh  the  sinner,  it  is  even  in 
his  mouth,  and  in  his  heart.  Rom.  10,  8.  How  can  it  be 
brought  any  nearer  ?  The  reason  why  such  have  not  obtain- 
ed  salvation,  is  because  they  imagine  they  must  become  new 
creatures  ;  or  that  they  must  have  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit,  before 
they  can  be  entitled  to  believe  in  Christ;  or  they  cannot  con- 
ceive that  this  salvation  is  within  more  than  their  reach. 

The  renewa',  or  sanctification  of  the  h-^art  never  precedes, 
but  aUvays,  and  infallibly  succeeds  justification.  1st,  The  Ho« 
ly  Ghost  creates  faith  by  the  hearing  of  the  gospel,  by  \^h.ch 
we  apprehend  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  2d,  By  thij- our 
persons  are  justified.  3d,  Because  we  are  justified  the  Spirit 
renews  our  hearts.  And  4ih,  Because  we  are  in  a  stale  of 
renovation,  our  hearts  get  filled  with  the  good  graces  of  the 
Siiiilt  ;  or  we  have  such  spiritual  abilities  to  do  good  works* 

Whf'n  T  say,  the  sinner  is  saved  \^ ithout  the  renovation  of 
the  heart,  I  mean  he  is  saved  from  the  curse  of  the  law.  that 
every  moral  obstiuction  is  removed  ;  so  that  the  Spirit  may 
commence  his  sanctifying  operations  :  but  1  do  not  n  can, 
that  this  renovatif-n  is  not  necessary  to  save  him  from  his  na- 
tural, sinful  corruptions.  We  are  not  only  under  the  cujse  of 
the  law,  hence  obnoxious  to  future  legal  punishments  ;  but  sin 
is  also  attended  with  such  natural  consequences,  which  len. 
der  us  miserable  ;  therefore  this  renovation  becomes  indis- 
pensably necessary,  to  arrest  them  in  their  pernicious  progiess. 

When  I  say,  the  implanted  graces,  or  fruits  of  the  Sprit 
are  a  source  of  felicity,  the  blissful  anticipation  of  the  sweets 
in  the  regions  of  g'ory,  I  do  not  wish  to  be  understood,  as  if 
the  renovation  of  our  nature  was  not  previously  necessary  ; 
but  I  mean  that  those  fruits  of  the  Spirit  are  not  the  renova- 
tion itself  ;  but  the  blessed  consequences  thereof  There  is  a 
dififercnee  between  the  renewal  itself,  and  tho=e  blessed  fruits 
produced  by  it»     In  the  exercise  of  those  graces,  there  ap- 


145 

pears  to  be  a  happiness.  The  apostle  says  *Tt  is  more  b1es«;ed 
to  give  than  lO  receive.'  Aets  20,255.  To  g  ve,  is  an  act  .f 
g  >.Mlness.  in  which  aS  the  ap  stlc  say;:,  there  is  a  blessedness. 
God  is  tile  greatest  of  all  benefactoi  s,  and  he  takes  delight  in 
diti'using  his  gi-odness:  tor  'the  eartli  is  tuU  oi  the  goodness  of 
tlie  Lord.'  Ps.  33,  5.  The  man  w  ho  as  a  Christian  exci  ci^es 
goofiness,  faintly  imitates  God,  in  which  there  is  a  gre.t  bl  s- 
sedness.  What  are  all  the  good  uorks  of  a  Christian,  but  a 
d<  light  to  hin>  ?  St  Paul  delighted  in  the  law  of  God  after 
the  inwanl  man,  Rom.  7,22.  Whatever  is  a  dilight  to  a 
man,  also  becomes  a  motive  for  persevering  in  t.  No  mar- 
vel therefore,  that  the  Christian  is  busy  in  domg  all  he  good 
he  can,  \\  hen  he  finds  in  i;  a  great  le^iciiy. 

Although  the  renovation  of  the  heait  succeeds  justification  ; 
nevertheless  ue  must  perpetually  be  kept  by  faith  ;  because 
our  renovation  in  this  lite  remaiiis  imp  rtect,  it  being  assailed 
b^  the  flesh,  the  world,  ani!  Satan.  Not  only  he,  tha;  is  ^et 
unjust,  is  to  be  justified  by  laith  ;  but  he  a  so,  who  is  already- 
justified  must  live  by  faith — *th(;  just  shall  live  by  faith.'  Gal» 
3,  11.  Thus  because  the  believer  is  tViquently  captivated 
by  the  flesh,  that  he  sins,  he  cannot  remain  just,  without  V\e 
intercession  of  Jesus  Christ.  *  My  little  children,  these  things 
wrte  I  unto  you,  that  ye  sin  not.  And  if  any  man  sin,  .ve 
have  an  advocate  with  the  Father.  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous.* 
1  John  2,  I.  From  this  text  we  learn  that  we  have  not  on- 
ly a  pardon  for  our  sins,  when  we  get  juStifiid  ;  but  also,  be- 
cause we  are  constantly  assailed  by  ou  spiritual  enemies,  and 
frequently  overcome,  we  must  avail  ourselves  of  the  interces- 
sion of  Christ,  who  lives  for  ever;  and  whose  righteousness 
is  our  perpetual  ornament. 

Although  the  renovation  of  the  heart  be  necessary  ;  yet  as 
we  are  justified  by,  imd.  eonstant'y  I  ve  by  faith  ;  and  be- 
cause of  this  justification,  God  commences  this  blessed  work, 
it  is  evident  that  faith  is  the  on'y  condition  of  our  salvation  : 
for  he  that  holds  i'ast  to  the  condition,  will  also  find  the  b'es_ 
sed  consequences,  O  my  soul  !  do  not  imagine  because  God 
h  IS  fommenced  the  work  of  renovation  in  thee,  that  thou  shult 
for  the  sake  o!  the  same,  be  able  to  stand  in  his  judgment  ; 
but  give  all  sjl  >ry  to  Jesus,  thy  mediator  ;  constantly  fold 
fas^  to  his  righteousness  ;  wrapped  in  A^  thou  wiH  be  pleading 
to  thy  heavenly  Father* 


Uti 
FRAGMENT    V. 

•rhe  impossibility  of  a  sinner  being  justified  by  the  deeds  of  the  law,  argu- 
ed from  his  depraved  nature.  Also  from  a  few  other  testimonies.  Sun-^ 
dry  objections  answered. 

By  the  deeds  of  the  law  such  are  meant,  which  are  per- 
formed agreeable  to  it.  They  are  also  called  good  works. 
There  are  some  who  believe^  that  although  a  sinner  may  not 
merit  any  thing  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  ;  yet  that  such  aie  con- 
ditions by  which  the  grace  of  justification  is  granted.  Hence 
it  is  frequently  affirmed,  that  sinners  ought  to  endeavour  to 
keep  the  law;  and  though  not  any  thing  should  thereby  be 
merited  ;  yet  that  such  is  the  condition  of  our  justification.  But 
that  such  is  erroneous,  will  appear  when  we  view  the  depravity 
of  man's  nature. 

Man  was  created  in  God's  own  image.  Gen.  1,  27.  An 
inage  must  in  some  respect  resemble  its  original.  Ot  this  im- 
age, God  himself  is  the  original.  But  this  image  in  man,  was 
n  )t  substantial  like  the  original ;  otherwise  it  could  never  have 
been  effaced.  Christ  only,  is  this  substantial  image — 'he  is  the 
image  of  the  invisible  God';  Col.  1,  15 —  4he  brightness  of 
the  father's  glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  person.'  Heb. 
1.  3  Nevertheless,  man  must  have  resembled  God  in  some 
of  his  moral  perfections.  'God  is  light,'  1  John  1,5;  hence 
his  understanding  is  pure,  and  unclouded.  Man's  understand- 
ing, though  limited  ;  yet  it  had  no  erroneous  views,  and  pos- 
sessed such  knowledge  which  was  an  element  of  felicity.  This 
niay  be  concluded  from  Col.  3,  10: — 'And  have  put  on  the 
iiew  man,  which  is  renewed  in  knowledge  after  the  image  of 
him  that  created  him.'  To  be  renewed  in  knowledge  after  the 
image  of  God,  implies  afoimer  image  endued  with  knowledge: 
for  what  did  not  once  exist  beTore,  cannot  be  renewed.  A- 
gain — 'And  be  renewed  in  the  Spirit  of  your  mind  ;  and  that 
ye  put  on  the  new  man,  which  after  God  is  created  in  right- 
eousness and  true  holiness.'  Eph.  4,  23.  24.  To  be  renew- 
ed in  the  Spirit  of  the  mind,  presupposes  such  once  to  have 
been  in  man  ;  and  the  new  man  created  in  righteousness,  and 
holiness  is  nothing  else  than  a  restoration  of  a  former  image. 
From  this  it  may  be  concluded,  that  the  image  of  the  first 
man,  resembled  God's  moral  perfections  ;  hence  an  intellectu- 
al ornament.  But  as  the  soul  was  united  to  the  body,  it  also 
possessed  a  proportionate  beauty,  and  was  in  a  state  of  immor- 
tality. 

Bu4  when  man  transgressed,  he  was  bereft  of  this  image ; 


147 

.hence  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  communicate  it  to  his  pow 
'  tcrity.  Tills  loss,  is  the  cause  of  ilie  depravity  ot  ail  men. 
Thus  the  want  of  knowledge,  is  the  cause  of  ignojance;  of 
righteousness,  unrighteousness  ;  and  of  holiness,  pollution. 
The  sciiptui-es  represent  man  after  the  lall,  as  'dead  in  tres- 
passes and  sins;'  Eph.  '2,  1 — as  'having  the  understanding 
ciarken<'d,  being  alienated  from  the  life  of  God  through  tlic 
ignorance  that  is  in  them,  because  of  the  blindness  of  their 
heart.'  ch.  4,  18.  The  prophet  also  says  'Circumcise  your- 
selves to  the  Lord,  and  take  away  the  foreskins  of  your  heart.' 
Jer.  4,  4.  As  this  text  represents  the  heart  as  having  a  fore- 
skin, it  is  evident  that  the  same  covers  the  intellectual  powers 
of  the  mind  with  darkness.  Thus  we  did  notj^etto  be  sinners 
by  our  own  practices,  but  by  the  disobedience  oi  one  man  the 
divine  image  was  lost ;  hence  we  are  sinners  by  inheritance, 
Rom.  6,  12. 

This  inherited  depravity  does  not  simply  consist  in  bodily 
infirmities,  or  such  properties  which  are  essential  to  constitute 
man's  limited  nature  :  as  if  that  was  the  cause  of  his  lusts,  and 
inordinate  desires  ;  but  in  an  intel'ectual  ignorance  with  re- 
spect to  spiritual  things,  and  an  enmity  against  God  ;  and  it  is 
the  source  from  whence  flow  all  actual  transgi-cssions.  Per- 
haps, because  this  sin  is  called  the  flesh,  and  its  works  the 
works  of  the  flesh,  some  may  conclude  that  it  is  merely  a  phy- 
sical defect  ;  which  therefore,  cannot  be  so  criminal  as  to  de- 
serve eternal  condemnation.  Though  it  be  true,  that  the  word 
^e.sTi  in  sundry  sacred  texts  denotes  the  human  body  ;  yet  is 
it  also  evident,  especially  where  it  is  opposed  to  the  Spirit, 
that  it  signifies  the  depraved  heart.  We  read  of  the  'carnal 
mind  that  is  enmity  against  Gsjd,  and  not  subject  to  his  law  ;' 
Rom.  8,  7— and  of  'the  fleshly  mind.'  Col.  2,  18.  To  this 
flesh,  there  appears  to  be  a  mind  ascribed.  The  works  of  the 
flesh  are  'adultery,  fornication,  uncleanness,  lasciviousness, 
idolatry,  witchcraft,  hatred,  variance,  emulations,  wrath,  strife, 
seditions,  heresies,  envyings,  murders,  drunkenness,  "cvel- 
lings,  and  such  like.'  Gal.  5,  19-21.  Now  sundry  of  these 
works  of  the  flesh  :  such  as  idolatry,  witchcraft,  hatred,  vari- 
ance, &c.  do  not  originate  in  the  body,  but  in  the  soul  ;  hence 
it  is  evident  that  the  flesh  denotes  the  depraved  heart. 

Our  Saviour  said  unto  Nicodemus  'tliat  ^^  hich  is  born  of 
the  flesh  is  flesh  ;  and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spir- 
it.' John  3,  6.  In  the  §d  v.  he  insists  upon  the  necessity  of 
regeneration.  Because  man  is  born  of  the  flesh,  he  is  flesh  ; 
hence  he  must  be  born  again  of  the  Spirit,  before  he  can  en- 
berinto  the  kingdom  of  God.     Now  the  soul  is  the  particular 


148 

obj(^ct  of  renovation  :  for  the  body  as  such  cannot  perceive  the 
ope  itiins  oftne  Spirii  ;  hence  as  the  soul  is  mepaiuouiar  ob- 
je  t  ot"renoviit>on,  it  is  evident  that  Ciiiist  means  it,  in  so  far 
as  it  is  depraved,  when  he  speaks  ol  the  flesh.  Cmldren  do 
n*»i  only  derive  tiieir  bodies,  but  .ilso  their  souls  trom  tiiei*  pa- 
rents ;  because  that  vvhn  h  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  tlie 
fiesh,  as  is  al  eady  sliewn,  s  the  dtpi  avcd  soul ;  eonsequently 
thifc.  corruption  is  piopagaied  by  natuial  generation.  'Behoid, 
1  was  ^h  ipt'n  in  in  quiiy  ;  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive 
me  ;'  Ps,  51,  5— 'and  were  by  nature  the  children  oiWrath, 
even  as  others '■    Eph.  2,3. 

The  word  nature  is  sometimes  u?ed  to  denote  the  essence, 
or  substance  ;  and  also  sometimes  the  disposition  of,  or  the 
condition  in  which  a  ihing  may  be.  In  so  tar  as  man's  nature 
den  >tes  a  substance  consisting  of  a  body,  and  soul,  it  cannot 
be  original  sin  itself,  nor  any  part  thcre(  f.  God  may  be  cal- 
led a  substance,  and  so  may  all  his  creatures  ;  yet  it  cannot 
be  supposed  that  sin  is  a  snb-tance.  What  may  it  otherwise 
be  called,  but  a  transgression  of  the  law  ;  or  an  opposition  to  the 
divine  order  ;  oracf^ntingency  arising  from  the  illegal  conduct 
of  creatures  ?  God  is  good,  and  holy  ;  hence  it  would  be  a 
blasphemy  to  ;^ppose  that  he  was  th(>  creator  of  sin.  Nev- 
ertheless, he  is  man's  creator,  and  preserver,  since  as  well  as 
bef)|.nhe  faM.  See  Job  10.  8  11  Ps.  189  14,  15  Acts 
17,  28.  Now  if  man's  nature  itself  was  sin,  God  would  be 
its  creator.  But  as  this  is  out  of  the  question,  sin  cannot  be 
.nuiUre  itself.  The  Son  ot  God,  by  the  supernatural  energy  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  as  unT^d  human  nature.  Heb.  2^  !4-  16. 
But  he  even  accordin."  to  this  nature,  \^as  in  all  respects  h.  ly, 
_and  immaculate.  H'  nee  if  he  could  assume  the  nature  of 
man  vvithout  being  si  ful^  it  is  evident,  that  sin  cannot  be  na,- 
twei^st'V,  Again — 'The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  his  (God's) 
Son  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin.'  1  .John  1.7.  Ii  we  were 
sinitseb,  it  would  be  the  same  as  if  the  apostle  had  said  the 
•  bl  >od  of  Christ  cleansed  sin  trom  a!I  sin,  which  would  be  ex- 
tremely absurd. 

Aithough  sin  be  not  a  substance,  but  a  contingency  ;  yet  it 
bas  so  depraved  human  nature,  that  the  understanding  is  dar- 
kened, as  not  to  be  able  to  discern  spiritual  things  ;  the  will  is 
licentious,  and  filled  with  aiMtnosity  against  the  law  of  God*- 
xWht^rein  this  !)aneful  contingency  in  all  respects  consists,  1  do 
liot  venture  lullv  to  describe  ;  it  is  incomprehensible  to  man's 
a'eason,  and  we  can  only  acquire  some  knowledge  of  its  turbi- 
,tode  by  thi-  di^Mi    revelation. 

'Sh-Q  actions  of  men^  if  it  were  possible  to  view  them  with- 


149 

0ut  a  motive,  would  be  neither  virtuous,  nor  vicious.  To  ren- 
der tUein  so,  lequiies  a  choice,  and  a  choice  piesupposcs  rta- 
soM.  If  not,  vice,  or  virtue  might  be  ascribed  to  an  uratiLnal 
animal.  Thus  we  might  >ay  the  hicni  1^  s>paniei,  in  shevvu:g 
his  lidelity,  was  virtuous  ;  whereas  the  suily  niastih,  in  as- 
sailing his  master's  friend  was  vicious.  But  who  would  con- 
clude tiiat  the  pleasant,  or  unpleasant  actions  Oi  an  animal 
were  eitiier  virtuous,  or  vicit  us.  The  same  actions  of  men, 
may  either  be  virtuous,  or  vicious  according  to  the  rai.tive. 
A>  tor  instance  :  the  act  of  killing  a  man.  may  either  be  vi- 
cious, or  virtuous  He  t  at  kills  an  other  thruugh  enmity  is  a 
murderer  ;  whereas  if  the  civil  officer  execute  him  agreeable 
to  the  judicial  sent>  nee,  does  not  only  no  w  ong,  but  lulhls  an 
important  duty  Although  the  piincipal  design  oi  a  civil  gov- 
ernment in  punishing,  is  to  preserve  external  order,  and  to 
protect  the  citizens  egainst  thr  injuries  uf  base  libei  tines  ;  yet 
it  does  not  merely  aim  to  punish  an  ir  juiious  action,  but  the 
motive  from  whence  it  proceeded.  Thus  if  a  man  killed  ano- 
ther through  an  accident,  the  action  intleed,  would  be  injuri- 
ous ,  yet  would  he  not  be  adju  !ged  as  a  murderer,  because 
there  was  no  vicious  motive.  Now  it  even  in  a  lemporal  judg- 
ment, a  particular  atienfion  is  paid  to  th«  motive,  how  nucli 
more  when  God  judges,  who  is  omniscient,  and  is  acquainted 
with  every  secret  ? 

Since  the  actitms  of  men,  only  are  good,  or  evil  according 
to  the  motive,  it  is  wrong,  always  to  conclude,  that  when  a 
man  performs  such  works  as  would  be  laudab  e,  it  they  pro- 
ceeded from  a  right  motive,  that  thereioie  he  is  doing  g"od 
works.  Hence  we  are  not  to  conclude  in  every  instance,  rhat 
when  men  utter  nicely  polished  words  an<l  phrases,  which 
thty  call  praying  ;  give  alms  t©  the  poor  ;  and  peribrm  other 
acts  which  appear  laudable,  that  there  ore  they  are  works, 
which  are  good,  or  well-pleasing  to  God.  They  are  so  ;ar 
from  being  good,  that  they  become  sinful  in  consequence  of  the 
base  motive,  from  whence  they  proceed.  What  are  the  pray, 
ers  of  an  unbeliever  ?  They  are  a  profanation  of  God's  name: 
because  he  is  wicked,  so  must  be  his  motive  ;  hence  his  pray- 
ers cannot  be  otherwise.  The  apostle  concludes,  that  'what- 
soever is  not  of  faith  is  sin.'  Rom.  14,  23.  This  conclusion 
is  rational,  because  as  man  in  his  fallen  state  is  bereft  of  God's 
image,  his  motives  must  be  wicked  ;  hence  all  h  s  actions  pro- 
c  eding  from  the  same  are  equally  wicked  ;  as  it  is  out  of  the 
question  to  suppose  a  good  effect  to  be  produced  by  an  evil 
c  iuse.  Whilst  a  man  is  destitute  of  faith,  he  is  unrenewed  ; 
hence  can  have  nothing  but  wicked  motives  for  all  his  actions. 


ISO 

Not  only  such  works  which  are  directly  forbidden  by  the  kiw, 
but  also  all  such  as  would  otherwise  be  commendable  are  sin- 
ful, when  performed  by  an  unbeliever.  When  I  say  the  unre- 
generated  man  can  do  no  good  works,  I  do  not  mean  that  he 
cannot  do  all  the  acts  which  a  saint  can  do  ;  as  for  instance  : 
if  he  be  a  man  of  education,  he  may  form  a  prayer  ;  and  if  he 
be  wealthy,  he  can  give  of  his  substance  to  the  poor  ;  and  if 
he  possess  the  love  of  fame,  he  may  apparently  live  a  moral 
life  ;  but  I  mean,  when  he  does  all  this,  it  is  nothing  but  sin  ; 
because  he  as  an  unbeliever  can  have  no  right  motives.  Thus 
it  was,  that  the  offering  of  Cain  was  rejected.  Gen.  4  5. 
It  cannot  be  supposed  that  his  offermg,  when  externally  con- 
eidered  should  not  have  been  of  as  good  a  quality  as  Abel's. 
Neither  was  that  the  reason  why  it  was  rejected  ;  but  because 
he  was  wicked.  See  v.  7.  When  the  Pharisees  prayed,  fas- 
ted, and  gave  alms;  yet  were  they  pronounced  by  Christ  vvor- 
kers  of  iniquity.  The  manifest  reason  is,  because  their  mo- 
tives  were  corrupted.  He  justly  said  *a  good  tree  cannot  bring 
forth  evil  fruit,  neither  can  a  corrupt  tree  bring  forth  good 
fruit.'  Matth.  7,  18.  As  the  tree  is,  so  must  be  its  truits  ;  be- 
cause the  fruits  partake  of  the  nature  of  the  tree  ;  hence  if  a 
man  be  wicked,  how  can  his  works  be  otherwise,  though  they 
should  appear  ever  so  laudable  ?  A  man  endued  with  natu- 
ral reason,  acts  from  certain  motives  ;  hence  as  they  may  be, 
so  must  also  be  his  actions.  Now  as  man  is  a  sinner  by  na- 
ture, it  is  out  of  the  question  that  he,  before  he  is  regenerated, 
could  have  any  motives,  but  such  as  were  sinful  ;  hence  no  o- 
ther  actions. 

As  it  has  been  shewn  that  men  are  sinners  by  nature,  it  is 
impossible  for  them  to  keep  the  law,  how  then  can  they  there- 
by be  saved,  even  as  a  condition  ?  He  that  would  be  saved 
by  g)od  works,  must  also  not  merely  endeavour,  but  also  per- 
form such  legally  perfect.  But  this  no  man  can  do.  As  even 
such  works  :  as  praying,  giving  alms,  &c.  when  perlbrmed 
by  an  unbeliever  are  sinful,  how  can  we  conclude  that  any  one 
should  thei'eby  be  justified  ?  It  is  impossible  unless  we  could 
conclude,  that  a  man  might  be  justified  by  sinning!  What 
an  absurdity  this  would  be  ! 

All  men  are  not  only  sinners  by  nature,  but  they  are  equal- 
ly  depraved  :  'for  there  is  no  difference  :  for  all  have  sinned, 
and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God.'  Rom.  ?,  22,  23. 
Where  there  is  no  difference,  one  sinner  is  not  preferable  to 
another.  However  it  might  be  objected,  that  some  men  com- 
mit more,  and  greater  crimes  than  others,  that  therefore,  they 
must  be  more  deeply  depraved.    But  to  this  I  answer,  that  a 


151 

vicious  man,  for  various  reasons  may  be  prevented  from  com- 
mitting immoral  actions  ;  as  for  instance  ;  the  want  of  oppor- 
tunities, of  ingt-nuitj  ;  the  love  of  popularity  ;  the  dread  ot  pu- 
nishments. Some  are  prevented  by  a  superintending,  gracious 
providence.  The  serpent  that  does  not  wound  us,  w  e  trust  as 
little,  as  one  otthe  same  kind  that  does  ;  because  it  possesses 
the  same  venomous  nature*  Does  it  make  the  man  preferable 
to  an  other,  because  he  is  prevented  by  some  means  from  com- 
mitting the  same  crime  ?  Does  it  constitute  a  belter  nature  ? 
By  no  means. 

The  apostle  does  not  simply  declare  that  all  men  are  sin- 
ners without  any  difterence  ;  but  also  that  they  came  short  of 
the  glory  of  God.  What  glory  is  it,  of  which  we  came  short  ? 
It  is  the  glory,  which  the  Lord  would  have  given  us  :  provi- 
ded we  had  been  righteous  and  holy  ;  hence  not  that  glory 
which  we  could  give  him.  This  is  evident,  because  that  glo- 
ry is  hereby  indicated,  which  is  not  to  be  found  in  us.  The 
g'ory  which  Grod  receives  from  us,  may  always  be  found, 
whether  we  be  innocent,  or  guilty  :  tor  he  is  glorified,  either 
in  our  salvation,  or  condemnation.  That  glory  is  indicated 
which  is  opposed  to  the  unmerited  grace  of  God,  which  may 
be  seen  from  the  context.  But  there  is  nothing  opposed  to 
this  unmerited  grace  ;  except  a  perfect  righteousness  and  ho- 
liness, with  which  God  would  be  pleased,  for  the  sake  of 
which  he  would  give  us  a  glory.  The  expression  ^glory  of 
God,'  is  peculiar  to  the  apostle's  phraseology  ;  for  in  like  man- 
ner he  speaks  of  the  righteousness  of  God,  ch,  S,  22  ;  which 
does  not  denote  that  divine  attribute  ;  but  such  a  righteous- 
ness, which  he  grants  unto  us.  The  glory  is  the  testimony, 
which  he  would  give  the  man  that  had  his  image.  Comp. 
1  Cor.  11,  7.  Thus  if  all  men  be  sinners  alike,  and  if  they 
came  short  of  the  glory  of  God  ;  it  is  impossible  that  they 
should  be  justified  by  works  of  righteousness. 

We  are  justified  without  the  deeds  of  the  law,  that  all  boast- 
ing may  be  excluded.  'Where  is  boasting  then?  It  is  ex- 
cluded. By  what  law  ?  of  works  ?  Nay  ;  but  by  the  law  of 
faith.  Therefore  we  conclude  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith 
without  the  deeds  of  the  law.'  Rom.  3,  27,  28.  As  the  law 
of  works  does  not  exclude  boasting,  nothing  remains  but  that 
of  faith.  The  law  of  faith,  does  not  signify  a  new  law  given 
by  Christ  under  the  gospel  dispensation,  similar  to  the  deca- 
logue, but  not  quite  so  rigorous.  For  such  a  law,  like  the  one 
to  which  it  would  be  similar,  would  also  be  a  law  of  works  ; 
hence  would  not  exclude  boasting.  The  phrase  laiu  of  faith, 
is  a  Hebrewism.     A  doctrine  was  called  a  law  by  the  He- 


153 

brews.  As  for  instance  t  'out  of  Zion  shall  go  forth  the  law, 
an  I  the  word  of  the  uord  trom  Jerusalem.'  l>a,  2,  S.  It  is 
known  that  the  m.Jial  law  proceeded  trom  mount  Sinai. 
Mount  Zion  is  opposed  to  Sinai,  ihe  >i.me  as  the  law  is  to  the 
go>pel.  See  Heb.  12,  IS  .  '2^.  comp.  Gal.  4,  22  -  26.  Thus 
it  may  properly  be  concluded  that  the  la\^  \\  hich  goes  lorth 
out  ot  Ziori,  is  the  doctrine  ol  the  gospel.     Neither  can  it  pro- 

f)er!y  be  supposed,  that  when  he  excludes  v\orks,that  his  al- 
usion  is  to  those  of  the  ceremonial  law.  All  boasting  is  ex- 
cluded. But  there  would  be  a  gieater  rea^on  foi-  boasting,  in 
consequence  of  performing  the  deeds  ol  the  moral,  tlian  uf  the 
ceremonial  law,  because  it  is  sup- rioi.  1  he  deetisol  ihi.t  aW 
are  exc  ud  'xi  by  \  hich  'ever}  mouih  may  be  stopped,  an;'  all 
the  world  na  l-^gunty  before  G»d.'  v.  h).  B}  thecerem'  n  al 
law  every  m  )uth  may  not  be  stopped,  nor  all  tiie  world  made 
guilty  bei'ore  G.>d  ;  as  it  was  not  imposed  up  -n  all  nations,  but 
only  upon  the  Israelites.  It  is  therefore  evident,  that  all  the 
deeds  ofthe  noral  law  are  excluded.   See  R  m  11,6.   Tit  g  5. 

If  it  were  possib'e  ior  any  mmi  to  be  just.hed  by  the  deeds 
of  the  law,  beyond  all  dispute  St.  Paul,  whilst  a  Pharisee 
wou'd  have  been  justitied.  Whilst  he  nas  an  enemy  to  the 
Christian  Rrligion,  his  zea'  for  maintainii  g  the  righteousn-«s 
of  the  law,  -.vas  unrivalled.  This  he  himself  testifies —  Thou  h 
I  night  also  have  ct)ntidence  n  the  fiesh  If  any  other  uaii 
thinketh  he  hath  whereof  he  might  trust  in  the  fiesh,  I  moie: 
circumcised  the  eighth  day,  of  the  flock  of  Israel,  ot  the  tri'ic 
of  Benjamin,  an  H.brew  o;  the  Hebrews  ;  as  touching  the 
law.  a  Pharisee  :  conoeining  zi  al,  pi  rsecuting  the  church  J 
touching  the  righteousness  which  is  in  the  *a\v,  blameless.', 
Phil.  §,  4  6.  Notwithstanding,  by  all  this  he  could  nt  t  be 
justified  ;  and  after  he  got  acquainted  with  the  righteousness 
of  Jesus  Christ,  he  loathed  this  legal  righteousness,  and  view- 
ed it  like  a  filthy  garment.  He  says  'But  what  things  were 
gain  to  me,  those  I  counted  loss  for  C  irist.  Yea  doubtless, 
and  I  count  all  things  but  lo^-s  for  the  excelleney  of  the  knov\  I- 
edge  of  Christ  Jesus  my  Lord  :  for  whom  I  have  suffered  the 
loss  of  all  things,  and  do  count  them  but  dung,  that  I  may 
win  Christ,  and  be  found  in  him,  not  having  my  own  liL-ht- 
eousness,  which  is  of  the  law,  but  that  which  is  through  'he 
faith  of  Christ,  the  righteousness  which  is  of  God  by  faith.* 
V.  7-9. 

St.  Paul  also  bore  the  testimony  of  the  Jews,  'that  they  had 
a  zeal  of  God.  but  not  ai-cording  to  knowl<-dg.' — that  t' ■  y 
vere  going  about  to  establish  'heiro^'  n  righieousness  '  Rom. 
10,  2,  o.    But  what  did  it  avil  that  t^iey  did  their  utmost  to 


153 

keep  the  law  ?— for  they  were  not  justified.  Hence  if  the  po- 
pular doctrine  was  true,  tliat  it  is  suincient  ii  men  did  as  well 
as  they  knew,  and  use  their  sincere  endeavours  ;  there  is  not 
a  iloubt,  but  what  the  Jews  would  have  been  saved.  But  as 
they  failed,  it  must  be  concluded  that  this  opinion  is  erroneous. 
Not  all  who  sini-erely  endeavour,  shad  ihereiore  be  saved. 
Our  blessed  Savi  >ur  said  'strive  to  enter  in  at  the  strait  gate: 
for  many,  I  say  unto  you,  wdl  seek  to  enter  in,  and  fhali  not 
be  able.'  Luke  13,  24.  All  the  laborious  seeking  in  the  im- 
proper depository,  will  not  discover  thr  desired  object.  Many 
men  have  sought  a  long  time,  and  toiled  very  hard,  to  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God  ;  and  yet,  they  tailed  in  their  de>ign.  The 
reason  is,  because  they  attempted  to  enter  in  by  the  deeds  of  the 
law.  But  such  as  counted  all  their  deeds  as  siniul,  dispaiied 
of  their  own  righteousness,  and  embraced  Christ  as  their  light- 
eousness,  were  immlsdiateiy  clothed  with  the  garment  of  salva- 
tion. No  man  ever  failed,  who  persevered  in  faith.  Now 
every  man  may  judge,  whether  he  seeks  salvation  by  the  law, 
or  in  Christ.  If  he  seek  it  in  Christ,  he  needs  not  to  be  at  it  ma- 
ny years  :  for  Christ  is  not  only  very  ready  to  be  found  ;  but 
he  himself  diligently  seeks  the  sinner. 

That  a  sinner  is  justified  without  the  deeds  of  the  law,  is  a 
doctrine  that  is  clearly  revealed  in  the  scriptures  ;  neverthe- 
less, there  are  sundry  objections  alleged  against  it.  Some  of 
those  objections,  I  shall  here  state,  together  with  my  an- 
swers :  — 

Objection  1.  If  sinners  are  to  be  saved  without  the  deeds 
of  the  law,  or  good  works,  then  it  is  in  vain  to  exhort  them 
to  attend  to  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  and  the  use  ol  the  sa- 
craments ;  baptism,  and  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Answer.  This  objection  principally  arises  from  not  under- 
standing the  ditference  betwei'n  the  law,  and  the  go^peL 
There  are  many  who  suppose  that  hearing  the  gospel  preach- 
ed, and  using  the  sacraments,  is  performing  legal  duties. 
Whilst  men  view  those  blessed  institutions  in  this  legal  man- 
ner, they  must  either  conclude  that  in  the  use  of  them,  they 
are  saved  by  good  works  ;  or  that  they  are  not  essential  to 
sa'vation  ;  and  that  when  a  sinner  is  saved,  it  is  by  an  abso- 
lute, unconditional  decree. 

The  moral  law  existed  before  those  institutions,  I  mean  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel,  and  the  administration  of  the  sacra- 
ments. The  law  was  perfect  from  the  beginning  ;  hence  ad- 
mits of  no  additional  commandments.  The  sacraments  are 
appendages  of  the  gospel.  In  using  them,  it  cannot  be  said 
that  we  either  eerve  God,  or  our  neighbour  ;  but  God  serves 


«s  ;  because  they  are  administered  by  a  ministry,  by  which 
the  L.n'd  grams  the  Spirit,  and  liie.  2  Cor.  §,  6.  Tht-  law 
is  not  ul" faith,  bat  by  hearing  the  gospel  preached  we  get  faiih; 
and  without  laith,  the  sacraments  are  not  profitable  Now 
that  which  requires  faith,  is  not  the  law ,  but  the  gospel.  E- 
ven  by  hearing  the  law  preached,  we  do  not  keep  it,  but  only 
get  convinced  of  our  depsavity.  Healing  the  gospel,'  and  ii^e- 
ing  the  sacraments,  requires  no  ability  to  do  good  works. 
There  is  a  dift'erence  betw  een  doing  good  work^,  and  believing'. 
^  sinner  before  he  is  renewed,  can  do  no  good  works  ;  yet  he 
may  believe.  And  though  he  cannot  believe  w  ithcut  the  a- 
gency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ;  yet  who  would  deny,  but  what  he 
could  hear  the  gospel,  and  pay  so  much  attention  to  it,  as  to 
compare  its  truths  as  far  as  his  rational  faculties  extend  ? 
Though  his  reason  be  darkened  by  the  fail,  so  as  not  to  be  able 
to  discern  spiritual  things  ;  yet  when  he  attends  to  the  gospel, 
which  is  administered  in  a  human  language,  which  is  adapted 
to  his  capacity  ;  by  this  means  the  Spirit  will  effect  iaith  in 
him.  If  men  in  this  age,  <lid  not  like  the  blinded  Jens,  con- 
found the  law  with  the  gospel,  they  would  not  conclude  that 
hearing  the  gospel  preached,  and  using  the  sacraments,  was 
performing  It  gal  duties. 

Objection  2.  li  sirmers  were  not  able  to  keep  the  law^, 
why  did  God  impose  it  upon  them  ?  There  would  be  no  jus- 
tice in  giving  a  law,  which  they  could  not  keep. 

Answer.  Had  God  created  man  wicked,  and  then  given 
him  a  holy  law,  which  he  could  not  keep,  it  indeed  might  be 
considered  as  unjust.  But  God  created  man  in  his  own  im- 
age ;  and  had  man  persevered  in  his  loyalty,  his  posterity 
would  have  retained  the  ability  of  yielding  an  uninterrupted 
obedience.  That  man  lost  this  blessed  image,  by  which  he 
rendered  all  his  posterity  delinquents,  is  no  reason  that  they 
should  be  absolved  from  legal  obligations.  Does  a  just  debt, 
therefore  become  unjui^t,  because  the  debtor  by  some  misman- 
agement, has  rendered  bin  self  unable  to  make  payment  ? 

Let  no  one  suppose,  that  because  we  nowhere  read  that  the 
moral  law  was  given  to  Adam  in  a  formal  manner,  the  same 
as  it  was  to  Moses  on  mount  Sinai ;  that  therefore,  he  was 
not  under  its  obligations.  Or,  that  when  he  did  eat  of  the 
fruit  of  the  forbidden  free,  that  he  did  not  also  thereby  trans- 
gress the  moral  law.  The  moral  law  is  founded  upon  the  im- 
mutable principles  of  justice,  and  holiness,  from  which  no  ra- 
tional creature  can  be'exempted  All  the  various  parts  of  the 
law  concentrate  in  lovk.  Had  Adam  complied  with  that 
particular   command   which    God  gave  him,  it  would  have 


155 

been  a  manifestation  of  his  love,  and  fidelity.  But  what  di^ 
he,  by  eal  ng  of  the  lorbid<len  tree  otherwise,  than  act  contra- 
ry Id  the  principles  of  Love  ? 

'  The  apostle  says  'For  until  the  law  sin  was  in  the  world  : 
but  sin  is  not  imputed  when  there  is  no  law.'  Rom.  5,  IS — 
'But  sin.  that  it  might  appear  sin,  working  death  in  me  by 
that  which  is  good  ;  that  sin  by  the  commandment  might  be- 
come exceeding  sinful.'  ch.  7,  1?-^ — 'For  by  the  lav\  is  the 
knowledge  of  sin.'  ch  S,  '^0.  These  texts  shew  that  sin 
was  in  the  world,  before  the  law  ;  or  before  it  was  given  in  a 
formal  manner  to  Moses  ;  and  yet  that  by  ibis  law  sin  .&  re- 
vealed, and  condemned.  If  the  sin,  that  w  as  in  the  world  pri- 
or to  M  ises,  was  not  a  transgression  of  the  moral  law,  how 
could  it  reveal,  and  condemn  it  ?  When  a  law  is  opposed  to 
a  particular  sin,  it  is  evident  that  the  same  sin,  must  also  be  op- 
posed to  the  la\\ .  Now  as  the  moral  law  reveals,  and  con- 
demns the  sin,  that  was  in  the  world  prior  to  Moses,  which  is 
the  original  transgiession  of  Adam,  it  is  evident  the  same  is  a 
transofression  ot  the  moral  'aw.  In  Adam  all  men  transgres- 
sed this  law.  In  him  tiiey  once  had  the  ability  of  keeping  it. 
That  they  by  the  fall  lost  this  ability,  is  no  reason  that  they 
should  be  absolved  from  their  obligation  to  it. 

Objection  8.  St.  Paul  says  'work  out  your  own  salvation 
with  fear  and  trembling.'  Phil.  2,  12.  And  St.  Peter  'If 
the  righteous  scarcely  be  saved,  where  shall  the  ungodly  and 
sinner  appear?'  1st  Epist.  ch.  4,  18.  ?5ow  if  we  must 
workout  our  own  salvation  with  fear,  and  trembling,,  does  it 
not  follow  that  we  must  do  all  the  good  we  can,  if  we  would 
be  .caved  ?  And  if  a  righteous  man  scarcely  shall  be  saved,  it 
requires  all  our  diligence  in  doing  good  to  render  ourselve  ac- 
ceptable. 

Answer.  The  Philippians  whom  the  apostle  exhorted  to 
work  out  their  own  salvation,  were  already  regenerated.  In 
the  clause  before  of  this  same  verse,  the  apostle  bears  them  the 
testimony,  that  they  always  were  obedient,  not  only  in  his 
presence,  but  much  more  in  his  absence.  And  in  v.  15,  he 
calls  them  shining  lights  in  the  world.  Hence  they  that  are 
obedient,  and  shine  as  lights  in  the  world,  must  certainly  be 
God's  children  ;  and  as  such  they  are  already  in  a  slate  of 
salvation  ;  thei  efore  they  have  no  need  to  do  good  works,  to 
render  themselves  acceptable  to  God.  But  if  the  reason  be 
asked,  why  should  they  work  ?  the  answer  follows  from  the 
succeeding  verses  : — 'For  it  is  God  which  worketh  in  you  both 
to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure.  Do  all  things  without 
murmurings  and  disputings  :  that  ye  may  be  bhinieless  and 


156 

harmless,  the  sons  of  God,  without  rebuke,  in  the  midst  of 
a  crooked  and  perverse  nation,  among  whom  ye  shine  as 
lights  in  the  world  ;  hold  ng  lorth  the  word  oi  lite  ;  thai  I 
may  rtjoice  in  the  day  of  Christ,  &c  *  v.  13  - 16.  One  thing 
is  to  work,  in  order  to  be  justified  before  God  :  but  another  is 
to  work,  in  order  to  appear,  and  be  blameless,  and  harmless, 
without  rebuke  in  the  midst  oi  a  crooked,  and  perverse  nation. 
jN  )t  the  fo-  mer,  but  the  latter,  is  the  reason,  why  the  apostle 
exhorted  tie  Pliilippians  to  work  out  their  own  salvation. 

Notwithstanding,  a  Christiiin  may  be  fully  persuaded  that 
he  is  one  o\  the  lavourites  of  the  Almighty  Father  ;  but  as 
he  lives  in  a  wicked  world,  and  is  suirounded  by  false  proph- 
ets, who  come  to  him  in  sheep's  clothing  ;  and  v\ho  peihaps 
guide  many  of  his  family  connexion,  he  n)ust  always  tear,  and 
watch,  lest  he  be  drawn  aside,  and  participate  in  their  lalse 
dt)ctrines,  whieh  they  exhibit  under  the  disguise  o.  truth. 
Thus  on  the  day  ot  P-  ntecost,  St  Peter  exhorted  the  con- 
verts :  Save  yourselves  Irom  this  untoward  generation.'  Acts 
2,  40.  There  is  no  d.*ubt,  but  what  those  Jewish  converts 
were  connected  with  the  Stiibes.and  Pharisees,  the  lues  to  the 
truth  under  the  disjjfuise  oi"  virtue  ;  hence  it  u  as  necessary  that 
they  should  separate  themselves  from  their  pernicii  us  errors  ; 
or  to  cease  all  ecclesiastical  connexicn.   See  2  Cor.  6,  14    18* 

The  context  will  shew,  why  the  apostle  Peter  said  'if  the 
righteous  scarcely  be  saved  &e.'  'For  the  time  is  come  that 
judgment  must  begin  at  the  house  of  God  :  and  if  it  tirst  be- 
gin at  us,  what  shall  the  end  be  of  them  that  obey  not  the  gos- 
pel of  God  r  And  if  the  righteous  scarcely  be  saved,  where 
shall  the  ungodly  and  sinner  appear  ?  Wherefore  let  them 
that  suffer  according  to  the  will  ot  God  commit  the  keeping 
of  their  souls  to  hbn  in  well  doing,  as  unto  a  faithful  creator.' 
V  17-19.  This  plainly  she\\s,  that  the  apostle  spake  of  a 
persecution  that  was  coming  on  the  church.  In  the  time  of  a 
persecution,  the  professors  of  Christianity  are  severely  tried  : 
and  as  those  that  are  genuine  hold  out  with  difficulty,  the  con- 
clusion must  be,  the  ungodly  will  be  unmasked,  and  join  the 
company  of  infidels 

Objection  4.  Our  Saviour  says  '  Strive  to  enter  in  at  the 
strait  gate  :  for  many,  I  say  unto  jou,  will  seek  to  enter  in, 
and  shall  not  be  able.'  Luke  IS,  24.  Matth.  7,  13,  14. 
!Now  if  one  is  to  strive,  if  the  gate  be  strait,  the  way  narrow  ; 
and  if  but  few  will  find  it,  does  it  not  become  necessary  to  do 
good  works  ?  to  use  all  diligence  ? 

Answer.  These  texts  are  so  far  from  proving,  that  any 
jaersou  is  to  be  justified  by  good  works,  that  they  prove  the 


157 

contrary.  Many  of  the  Jews  strove  very  hard  by  their 
uoiks  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  ;  and  yet  they  lailed  in  their 
attempt.  They  indeed  strove  to  enter  in,  but  not  at  the  gate 
and  the  way.  It  the  law  was  the  gate  to  heaven,  then  it 
would  be  necessaiy,  to  strive  in  this  manner.  But  the  law  is 
not  the  gate  vvhii  h  opens  into  paradise.  It  is  the  key  to  bind 
the  culprit  over  to  damnation.  Jesus  Christ  is  tlie  gate  that 
opens  into  heaven,  and  the  way  ihatleatis  thither.  He  says 
*I  am  the  door  ;  by  me  if  any  man  enier  in,  he  shall  be  sa- 
ved, and  shall  go  in  and  ou',  and  find  pastuie.'  John  10,  9, 
A  door  is  the  same  as  a  gate.  And  ch.  14.,  6,  he  cails  him- 
self the  way.  Christ  is  not  apprehended  by  the  deeds  of  the 
law,  but  by  faith  ;  hence  to  strive  to  enter  in  at  the  gate,  which 
is  Christ  himself,  can  imply  nothmgelse  than  to  believe.  All 
such  as  strive  to  enter  in  by  the  deeds  of  the  law,  do  not  en- 
ter by  the  door  :  for  that  is  Christ,  but  they  seek  to  climb  up 
some  other  way  ;  hence  they  are  thieves,  and  robbers.  They 
by  their  supposed  good  works  arrogate  the  honour  of  justifi- 
cation unto  themselves,  and  rob  Jesus  of  his  mediatorial  dia- 
dems. 

Whereas  it  might  be  asked,  why  Christ  exhorted  his  hear- 
ers to  strive  ?  and  why  but  few  enter  in  at  the  strait  gate  ?  I 
would  observe  that  the  believing  in  Chiist  is  not  difficult  in  it- 
self. But  the  reason  seems  to  be  stated  in  the  next  verse — 
'  Beware  of  false  prophets,  which  come  to  you  in  sheep's  cloth- 
ing ;  but  inwardly  they  are  raving  wolves  '  (Matth.  7,  15.) 
Such  therefore,  who  do  not  valiantly  hold  fast  to  the  truth, 
will  easily  be  led  captive  by  false  prophets.  Christ  is  so  clear- 
ly revealed  in  the  scriptures,  that  if  sinners  were  not  interrup^ 
te  I  by  false  teachers,  they  would  get  to  believe  without  muclfi^. 
difficulty.  In  our  Saviour's  days  of  humiliation,  there  ^^  ere 
many  false  teachers  :  such  as  the  Scribes,  and  Pharisees. 
They  were  the  teachers,  and  leaders  of  the  people,  who  held 
them  in  great  veneration.  They  were  the  most  inveterate  en- 
emies to  Christ,  and  his  doctrines.  Now  because  they  rejec- 
ted Christ,  many  of  the  people  merely  depending  upon  their 
judgment,  without  examining  the  truth,  would  not  receive  Je- 
sus as  the  promised  messiah.  Such  in  all  probability  said 
within  themselves  :  if  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the  Saviour  of 
the  world,  certainly  such  pious,  well  meaning,  and  learned 
mon  as  the  S'Tibcs,  and  Pharisees  would  believe  in  him» 
Whilst  others  to  avoid  their  indignation  rejected  Christ.  Sec 
Matth.  23,  \S.    John  12,  42.    ch.  7,  48. 

Objedion  5.     If  sinners  be  taught  that  they  are  to  be  saved 
without  good  works,  they  will  the  more  be  indulged  in  their 


1S8 

wicked  practices*  In  short  it  is  a  doctrine  which  will  lead  to 
licentiousness. 

A.iiswer.  Such  as  allege  this  objection,  are  the  true  succes- 
sors of  the  ancient  calumniators  ot  St.  Paul.     See  iVom.  3,  8. 

A  work  cannot  be  considered  either  as  good,  or  laudable, 
unless  it  proceeds  from  a  proper  and  tree  choice.  It  good 
works  were  a  condition  of  eternal  lite,  then  the  sinner  w.  uld 
know  it' he  did  not  perform  them,  he  would  be  eternally  dam- 
ned. The  dread  of  eternal  damnation  would  compel  him  to 
do  works,  in  which  he  would  not  otherwise  delight.  Now  if 
this  dread  co  npr>ls  him  to  do  those  works,  they  cannot  pro- 
ceed from  a  free  choice  ;  hence  they  cannot  be  good  works. 
Such  as  allege  the  above  objection,  might  as  well  at  once  say, 
if  it  was  not  for  the  dread  of  eternal  punishments,  they  would 
do  no  good  works — if  not,  why  do  they  conclude,  that  the 
doctrine  of  justification  without  works,  would  lead  others  to 
licentiousness  ?  In  this  they  show  themselves  like  incarnate 
devils.  For  devils  would  do  more  harm  if  they  were  not  re- 
strained. 

It  has  already  been  shewn,  that  when  the  sinner  is  justified, 
G  >d  renews  his  heart  ;  so  that  it  becomes  a  pleasure  to  him 
to  do  good  works.  They  tlow  from  a  voluntary  principle* 
When  he  is  justified,  he  realizes  the  previous  superabundant 
love  of  God.  Love  beorpts  love.  '  We  love  him,  because  he 
first  loved  us.'  1  John  4,  19.  Where  there  is  love,  no  com- 
pulsion is  necessary  to  produce  good  works. 


IMPROVEMENT. 

It  is  necessary  to  obtain  accurate  views  of  our  original  de- 
pravity. Without  such,  we  cannot  understand  the  doctrine  of 
justification. 

Inrjeed  the  most  who  profess  Christianity,  acknowledge 
that  our  nature  got  corrupted  through  the  fall  of  Adam  ;  so 
that  we  now  have  many  evil  desires,  and  physical  infirmities. 
Oi-  rather,  we  only  share  some  of  the  consequences  of  his 
transo^ression.  But  many  will  by  no  means  admit,  that  Ad- 
am's sin  was  brought  upon  us  ;  so  as  to  render  us  criminal, 
and  worthy  of  eternal  damnation.  This  I  conceive  to  be  a 
radical  error.  They  attempt  to  maintain  it  by  what  the  pro- 
phet says  :  'the  son  shall  not  bear  the  iniquity  of  his  father.' 
Ezek.  18,  20.  From  whieh  they  conclude^  we  are  not  to 
bear  the  transgression  of  Adam* 


159 

To  this  I  answer,  when  the  prophet  says  that  the  son  shall 
not  bear  the  iniquity  ol  his  father,  he  has  no  allusion  to  ihe  sin 
committed  b}'  Adam.  A  man's  father  is  not  the  tirst  cause, 
why  lie  is  a  sinner.  Our  iathers  as  well  as  we,  inherited  sin 
from  Adam.  Not  by  the  disobedience  ol  our  fatheis,  but  on- 
ly by  that  of  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  VAorld.  TLhe  suc- 
cession of  so  many  generations  frcni  Adam  to  us,  is  only  the 
channel  in  which  this  original  depravity  has  reached  us.  There 
is  a  difference  between  asserting,  that  the  sins  of  a  man's  fa- 
ther should  not  be  visited  on  him  ;  and  that  by  the  disobedi- 
ence of  one  man,  sin  came  upon  all  men.  The  prcphet  asser- 
ted the  former,  but  not  the  latter* 

If  only  by  the  tall  of  Adam,  sundry  sinful  desires  have  been 
implanted  in  us,  and  some  physical  infirmities  resulted,  but 
not  that  we  are  such  partakers  of  his  sin,  as  to  render  us  crim- 
inal, and  worthy  of  condemnation,  then  there  is  no  propriety 
in  saying  that  we  inherit  Adam's  sin  :  for  it  would  be  only 
some  of  its  consequences.  To  inherit  a  sin,  and  not  to  be 
criminal  it  contradicts  itself.  A  sin  necessarily  involves  the 
idea  of  being  criminal.  To  say  a  man  may  be  possessed  of 
a  sin,  and  yet  not  be  criminal,  is  a  glaring  absurdity. 

The  apostle  says  'Wherefore  as  by  one  man  sin  entered  in- 
to the  world,  and  death  by  sin  ;  and  so  death  passed  upon 
all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned.'  Rom.  5,  12.  This  text 
does  not  say,  that  the  effects  of  sin  entered  into  the  world  by 
one  man,  but  Sm.  And  further,  that  death  entered  by  sin. 
He  positively  declares,  that  because  all  have  sinned _,  death 
parsed  upon  all.  Now  if  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the 
world,  if  death  by  it  came  upon  all  men  ;  and  if  it  can  be  said 
that  all  men  have  sinned  ;  it  is  evident  that  all  men  may,  and 
are  justly  viewed,  not  only  as  partakers  of  the  consequences, 
but  of  the  original  transgression  itself. 

In  various  ways  the  will  and  conduct  of  one  person,  may 
be  imputed  to  another.  As  for  instance  :  if  the  superinten- 
dence of  a  man's  alfairs  be  committed  to  an  agent  ;  the  ag 
ent's  choice,  and  conduct  must  l^e  considered  as  his  own  : 
whether  it  be  proper,  or  improper  Or,  a  child  may  be  repre- 
sented by  a  guardian  :  his  will,  and  management  must  be  con- 
sidered the  same  as  if  it  were  that  of  the  child. 

In  either  of  these  cases,  if  the  choice,  and  management 
should  be  improper,  it  would  be  just  that  the  persons,  who  are 
represented  should  be  considered  as  if  they  had  committed 
the  error  ;  and  in  consequence  thereof  share  the  ill  effects. 
The  reason  is  obvious  :  because  the  same  would  apply,  if  the 
choice,  and  management  had  been  proper. 


160 

All  men  descend  from  one  man  :  Adam,  Acts  17,28  ;  and 
even  the  first  woman  was  bone  of  his  bones,  and  tiesh  of  Ins 
flesh.     Gen.  2,  23.  As  he  is  the  progenitor  of  all  men, 

the  prerogatives,  commands,  and  institutions  given  to  him  by 
his  creator,  did  not  merely  concern  himself,  but  also  all  his 
posterity.  'So  God  created  man  in  his  oiun  image,  in  the  im- 
age of  God  created  he  him  ;  male  and  tea  ale  created  he  them. 
And  G<»d  blessed  them,  and  God  said  unto  them.  Be  fruitful, 
and  multiply,  and  replenish  the  earth,  and  subdue  it  :  and 
have  dominion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl 
of  the  air,  and  over  every  living  thing  that  moveth  upon  the 
earth.  And  God  said,  B  hold,  I  have  given  you  every  herb 
bearing  seed,  which  is  upon  the  lace  of  all  the  earth,  and  ev- 
ery tree,  in  the  which  is  the  fruit  of  a  tree  yielding  seed  ;  to 
you  it  shall  be  for  meat.'  Gen.  1,  27  -29.  "  Adam  and  Eve, 
in  their  own  persons  could  not  have  exercised  this  dominion  : 
for  it  was  not  possible  for  them  to  have  subdued  the  fish  of 
the  sea,  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and  to  have  ruled  over  every 
beast  of  the  earth,  as  this  requires  a  numerous  society.  Thus 
it  is  evident,  when  God  granted  his  image,  and  the  preroga- 
tive of  being  a  ruler  over  this  lower  creation  unto  Adam,  that 
the  same  in  his  pers<m,  was  granted  to  his  posterity. 

The  first  institution  of  marriage  concerns  Adam's  posterity, 
'Therefore  shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and  mother,  and  shall 
cleave  unto  his  wife  :  and  they  shall  be  one  flesh.'  Gen.  2, 
24.  In  the  beginning  Adam,  and  Eve  were  no  parents  ; 
they  only  got  to  be  such  after  they  had  children.  But  by 
these  w^ords  Moses  indicates,  that  among  Adam's  posterity 
marriage  should  be  the  same  ;  so  that  every  man  should  con- 
sider his  wife  as  his  own  flesh.  This  interpretation  is  estab^ 
lished  by  St.  Paul — 'He  that  loveth  his  wife  loveth  himself. 
For  no  man  ever  yet  hated  his  own  flesh  ;  but  nurisheth  and 
cherisheth  it,  even  as  the  Lord  the  church  :  for  we  are  mem- 
bers of  his  body,  of  his  flesh,  and  of  his  bones.  For  this  cause 
shall  a  man  leave  his  father  and  mother,  and  shall  be  joined 
unto  his  wife,  and  they  two  shall  be  one  flesh.'  Eph.  5,  28    31. 

Since  it  is  evident  that  God  acted  with  AHam  in  behalf 
of  his  posterity,  it  is  very  congenial  to  the  analogy  of  things, 
to  conclude  that  the  prohibition  of  the  tree,  called  the  tree  of 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil.  Gen.  2,  17  ;  also  concerned  his 
posterity.  God  crowned  man  as  the  monarch  of  the  earth* 
His  dominion  as  it  respects  this  globe,  was  almost  unlinutcd. 
Had  God  not  excepted  one  tree,  over  which  man  should  have 
no  dominion,  he  might  have  been  led  to  forget  that  God  was 
his  Sovereign.     Since  man  received  so  great  a  dominion,  it 


lei 

Was  necessary  that  this  one  tree  shoukl  be  excepted,  to  keep 
hi  ;i  in  mind  that  lie  was  nut  the  pioprietor  Oi  the  world,  but 
only  Gjd's  Vicegerent.  As  the  same  dominion  was  granted 
to  his  posterity,  it  also  became  necessary  iliat  they  shoul.  hve 
under  the  same  prohibition  :  that  is,  the\  should  not  eat  ol  this 
one  tree  :  because  the  conierring  ot  the  same  priviicji^e,  ncees- 
sarily  includes  all  things  that  are  excepted  in  the  original  graiitj 
also  to  he  excepted,  when  conierred  to  another  on-  . 

Now  it"  G)d  gave  th  jse  prerogatives,  commands,  and  insti- 
tutions to  Adam  as  a  guardian,  his  conduct  in  regard  to  the 
same,  is  with  p-)priety  imputed  to  his  posterity.  Although  it 
be  i>roper  to  imoute  the  conduct  of  an  agent,  or  a  guardian  to 
the  persons  whom  they  represi  nt;  yet  as  all  men  sustained  nea- 
rer r^l  ition  to  Adam,  his  conduct  is  imputed  to  them  w  ith  more 
propriety.  In  Adam,  beloie  and  after  the  fall,  ad  men  accor- 
ding to  the  r  nature  were  concealerl,  which  by  natura'  genera- 
tion maniiested  itself  in  many  persons.  By  generation  human 
nature  is  brought  into  personalities.  It  is  like  a  ump  ol  clay 
formed  into  many  vessels.  Though  every  n  an  constitutes  a 
separate  person ;  yet  none  has  any  other  nature  than  that  of 
A'iam.  Whereas  all  men  were  concealed  in  Adam,  there  can 
be  but  one  nature;  hence  when  he  fell,  it  was  not  sin  ply  his 
person  that  fell,  but  human  nature.  All  men  must  therelore, 
be  as  closely  connected  with  the  fall,  as  they  are  with  nature 
itself';  or  more  properly,  as  they  are  with  themselves.  Thus  if 
Adam's  fall  was  criminal,  and  deserved  everlasting  punish- 
ments with  respect  to  himself,  the  very  same  applies  to  nis  pos- 
terity. 

That  Ad  im  managed  in  such  a  manner  as  to  render  us  guilty, 
and  t)  Cause  us  to  share  the  baneful  consequences,  is  h\  no 
means  an  unjust  permission:  because  if  he  had  managed  wel', 
w  •  should  have  been  righteous,  and  enjoyed  the  concomitant 
blessings 

That  this  original  sin  is  not  merely  a  physical  defect,  or  an 
imperfection  as  a  consequence  ;  but  also  criminal,  is  evident : 
because  we  by  reason  thereof  are  obnoxious  to  eternal  dam- 
nation. The  apostle  says  '  Taerefore  as  by  the  offence  of  one 
judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation  ;  even  so  by  the 
r'ghteou*^ness  of  one  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  onto 
justification  of  life.'  Rom  5,  18.  Here  we  see,  how  that  by 
the  offence  of  one  judgment  unto  condemnation  came  upon  all 
men,  is  contrasted  with  the  justification  of  life,  which  is  by 
Je>us  Christ.  As  the  justification  of  life  is  an  efernal  bies--ing, 
even  so  the  conrlemnation  which  came  by  the  offence  of  one, 
i,  Ct  Adam  must  olso  be  eternal.    From  hence  it  may  be  con- 

V 


162 

eluded,  that  because  we  are  under  condemnation  in  conse- 
quence of  ihis  onguial  sin,tiiat  theic  mastbea  butiticient  ground 
for  imputing  thj  same  to  us  us  eriiiMnaL  Hence  iet  no  one 
conclude  ihiu  we  have  only  ndierited  ihe  effects  of  this  i^in,  but 
al^o  tile  sin  itr-elt. 

Such  as  deny  original  sin  in  us  to  be  criminal,  and  wonby 
of  a  legal  malediction,  necessarily  view  inf..nts  as  innocent. 
But  it  they  be  innocent,  how  comes  it  that  all  as  soon  as  the}' 
can  exercise  their  reason,  choose,  and  do  that  which  is  evil  ? 
It  is  in  vain  to  say  that  they  learn  it  hom  the  bad  examples  of 
others.  For  if  this  sliould  be  the  case,  why  do  they  ad  with- 
out any  exception  sm:  —  why  are  there  none  so  v\  ise,  as  to 
avoid  those  pernicious  exan.ples  ?  The  vari<-.us  nations  of  the 
world  are  vustly  liiti'erent  in  their  customs,  and  languaiics. 
The  most  polished  nation,  could  never  as  yet,  by  their  exam- 
ple influence  the  whole  world  to  adopt  their  customs,  and  lan- 
guage. Bui.  is  it  not  strange,  that  ail  nations  are  prone  lo  evil, 
that  there  is  such  a  strdcing  si.ni'arity  bet.^een  iheir  vices  ;  so 
that  they  in  this  respect  answer  to  each  other,  like  the  accurate 
portrait  to  its  original?  What  example  had  Cain  to  imitate, 
when  he  murdered  his  brother  Abel  ?  He  w  as  the  first,  who 
committed  murder.  Or  what  examj)ies  of  imitation  had  the 
first  thie*",  adulterer,  or  any  ot,her  inmioi  al  character.  It  was 
impossible  for  the  first  to  have  learned  those  \a  iclced  deeds 
from  examples.  It  can  therefore,  not  be  otherwise  than  that 
every  child  possesses  a  wicked  heart,  which  manifests  itself  by 
evil  deeds,  (if  not  prevented  by  grace)  as  the  body  grows,  and 
as  the  faculties  of  the  mind  get  expanded. 

Such  as  deny  that  mfants  are  gui'ty,  and  under  the  curse, 
must  if  they  argue  consistently,  also  deny  that  they  are  redeein- 
cd  by  Christ ;  or  that  they  ever  can  be  saved.  What  an  ab- 
surdity it  w^ould  he  to  suppose  that  Christ  suffered,  and  died, 
to  redeem  innocent  creatures !  None  but  the  guilty,  and  lost 
can  be  redeemed.  But  who  can  believe  that  Christ  did  not 
also,  come  to  save  all  infants  ?  If  ho.  did,  it  is  evident  that  they 
must  be  guilty  :  for  only  such  can  be  saved. 

There  are  many  men,  w  ho  would  rather  be  saved  in  any- 
Other  way ,  than  by  ^aith  without  the  deeds  of  the  law.  Though 
they  confess  that  they  are  to  be  saved  by  faith  in  Christ ;  yet 
how  thev  labour  to  join  with  it  their  sujvposed  w  ell  meaning 
legal  deerls !  Could  t'ley  be  justified  by  any  laudable  work, 
how  freely  t^»ev  would  und'rtaKe  it ;  though  it  should  be  ever 
so  arduous  !  Under  the  pretext  of  'ove  for  ho'iness.  \hv\  allege 
many  obiev-tions  ;icfain«t  thf  doctrine  of  justification  without 
good   works.      Sometimes  they  misrepresent  certain  texts, 


163 

which  sppak  of  the  f.-uits  of  justification  ;  and  at  other  limes 
tht-y  coiiteud  tiiui  it  leads  lo  licentiuiibiiess.  bui  Uic  uut;  eau -e 
why  they  hute  ii,  is  their  diu'iolieal  pride,  and  their  enuiUN  a- 
gainst  the  erueified  Jesus.  It  they  cuuld  be  saved  by  doing 
sume  good  work,  they  could  take  it  tor  granted  that  tliey  v\ere 
not  so  fur  depraved,  as  to  deserve  eternal  damnation  ;  thry 
would  only  view  theni'^eivcs  as  somewhat  naturally  deticient 
in  c  )nsequenee  of  the  fall  ;  so  that  by  the  help  of  God  with 
their  o\N  II  sincerity ,  they  might  achieve  their  suivation.  Where- 
as sueh  an  one  when  he  is  told  that  all  his  deeds  avail  nothings 
he  knows  if  he  should  believe  it,  that  he  must  lat^k  him&eif 
with  the  vilest  of  culprits,  against  vvliich  Ins  proud  lieart  revolts. 
Now  whilst  a  man  imagines  that  his  works  are  good  ;  so  that 
they  contribute  something  towards  nis  salvation,  he  is  upheld 
in  his  pride,  and  is  well  contented  to  do  all  vvoiks,  which  have 
a  good  external  appearance.  Hence  as  the  doctrine  ot  justifi- 
cation with  lut  works,  strikes  at  the  root  of  his  pride;  contra- 
dicts his  own  righteousness  ;  condemns  all  his  works,  even 
such  as  by  the  world  are  esteemed  good,  and  luudabe  ;  and 
ranks  him  with  male  actors  ;  and  gives  all  g  ory  to  Jesus  the 
ei*ucified  Lord  :  he  hates  it ;  employs  all  his  ingenuity  to  render 
it  infamous  ;  and  though  he  knows  of  no  tounded  reason  or 
persecuting"  the  ministers  who  preach  it;  yet  he  does  it  with 
dehght. 


FRAGMENT    VI. 


A  brief  view  of  Repentance,  in  so  far  as  it  is  a  condition  of  justification. 

That  repentance  is  a  thinking,  after  the  deed  ;  that  it  consists 
in  sorrow  for  sin,  and  faith  in  Christ  has  already  been  shewn. 
See  pases  68  and  69.  See  also  Ps.  6,  2,  3—38,  4—51,  17— 
Matth.^11,28. 

There  are  sundry  who  add  to  repentance,  a  love  to  God, 
hating  sin  for  the  sake  of  its  o;liousrie>s,  and  a  reformation  of 
life,  and  condui-t.  Such  i  they  th  nk  it  expedient,  to  use  the 
word  repentance  in  so  extended  a  sense,  as  to  include  ali  the 
fruits  thereof,  I  will  not  upon  this  ground  contradict.  It  m.ust 
be  confessed  that  those  blessed  iru  tsr  such  as  love  to  God,  ha- 
ting sin,&c.  are  the  immediate  result  of  repentance.  But  to 
speak  accurately  upon  this  subject,  repentance,  ^r\(\  hsjruits 
ought  carefully  to  be  distinguished.  The  distinction  is  made 
by  the  scriptures: — 'Brine  forth  fruits  coeet  for  repentance,' 
Matth,  3,  8«    See  Acts  ii6,  20, 


164 

Rppentance  is  a  condition  of  justification.  Acts  2^  28« 
Tli'iigii  lie  word  i  epentance  siioul  i  be  use.t  in  su  e.\ten*icu  a 
si  lib  ,  as  to  include  tlie  truiit.  thereo  ;  yet  when  it  is  a}j|jiieti  to 
d.Mioie  a  e  >nditiun  oi  justitication,  it  is  erroneous  tu  uuniii  of 
this  addition  ;  as  it  then  can  on  y  consist  m  s  rro;\  tor  siu,  and 
faith  in  Christ 

If  repentance  as  a  condition  oi  justification,  also  consisted  in 
hating  sin  ^or  the  sake  of  iis  odn.usl)e^s,  and  u  love  lu  G.  d,  it 
would  require  j  man  not  only  to  be  justified,  but  aiso  lo  bt-  in 
a  Slate  of  sanctification,  belore  he  eouKi  repent  ;  because  such 
a  hatred  agaiii>'i  sin  pitsupposrsa  hoiy  pruicipK ,  and  a  lo\eto 
G)  I,  a  confoinnty  to  the  !avv.  Bu;  is  there  such  a  huiy  pi  ;n- 
ciple  in  an  unregenerated  sinner  r  No.  Hence  it  is  not  pussi- 
b  e  for  such  a  prrson  to  hate  sin  for  the  saK.e  of  its  odiuusn^ss, 
or  to  love  God  ;  because  such  would  be  contrary  to  hih  \Meked 
e'ement.  It  would  be  absurd,  to  suppose  that  an  unregentia- 
ted  sinner  should  hate  sin  in  \>  hich  he  deliglits,  and  conlor  m 
to  a  law,  agains'  which  he  is  filled  with  enmity.  But  \Aho  is 
t  repent,  in  order  to  be  justified  ? — is  it  the  one  that  is  justifi- 
ed, an  I  ill  a  st  ite  o*  san^tifii-ation  ?  No.  For  how  should 
the  justified  be  justified  ?  It  is  the  unjustified  sinner,  v\ho  is 
to  repent  if  he  would  ••njoy  the  grace  ol  justification,  as  our 
blessed  Saviour  said  'I  came  not  to  call  the  righteitus,  but 
sinners  to  rept-niance.'  Mark  2,  17.  Luke  15,  1  -  10. 
N  vv  as  the  unjustified  sinner  is  to  re})ent ;  yet  as  he  is  des- 
titutt^  of  all  holy  principles,  he  cannot  hjite  sm  ibr  the  sake  of 
its  odiousness,  nor  love  God  ;  hence  it  must  be  concluded  that 
neither  this  hatn  d  against  sin.  nor  love  to  God.  nor  any  other 
good  work,  Constitutes  a  part  of  repentance.  To  suppose  that 
a  sinner  should  possess  these  holy  prini  iples,  be  ore  he  could 
Ife  in  a  state  of  repentance,  presupposes  him  to  be  a  saint,  ^^  ho 
as  --uch  would  be  justified.     Such  an  idea  ccntiadirts  itselt. 

It  has  b 'en  "-hewn  that  a  man  is  justified  \^  ithout  the  deeds 
of  the  law.  But  if  repentance  as  a  condition  of  justification 
had  to  flow  from  love  to  God,  \Ahat  would  it  else  be,  but  a 
(iee(\  ol  the  'aw  ?  for  lov:  is  its  principal  precept.  Love  is  no 
condition  of  justification,  but  repentance  is  ;  hence  repentance 
and  love  must  be  different  It  is  somewhat  astonishing,  that 
many  preach  that  a  sinner  is  justified  by  grace  without  the 
deeds  of  the  law  ;  and  vet  when  they  describe  repentance 
a«  a  condi  ion.  they  will  have  it  to  proceed  Irom  love  lo  God, 
and  to  be  a  hatred  aga  nst  sin.  for  the  sake  of  its  odiousness. 
This  is  a  pal))  ible  contradiction  :  for  if  a  sinner  be  justified 
by  grnce  without  the  deeds  of  the  I.jw.  how  can  repentance  as 
a  condition,  proceed  from  love  to  God,  v\  liich  is  the  fundameu- 


# 


169 

tal  precept  of  the  law  ?  Hence  he  that  asserts,  that  repeii« 
tance  as  a  condition  ol'justifivaiion,  must  piocted  trom  1o\l  to 
God,  and  other  holy  prineip<es  ,  anii  yet  that  a  man  is  jus.iti- 
ed  without  the  deeds  ot  the  law,  contradicts  hmiseii,  auu  y>er- 
pi.'xes  the  minds  of  his  audience  It  sorrow  for  sin,  doi  s  not 
flow  from  love  to  God,  and  other  upright  principles,  it  might 
be  asked  :  why  is  it  at  all  necessary  r  L  is  not  necessui)  as 
a  sutieiing,  to  atone  for  our  guilt ;  iror  as  a  good  \\oik,  to  ob- 
tain the  grace  of  justification.  Whdst  the  sinner  is  instnsille 
of  his  sinful  depiMv-ty,  he  does  not  knov,  that  he  is  undei  the 
sentence  of  condemnation,  nor  the  need  of  a  Saviour  ;  and  the 
©ft't^r  of  a  pardon  would  be  no  more  regarded,  than  that  which 
might  through  mockery  be  offered  by  a  govcinour  to  an  hin- 
est  man,  who  could  not  be  convicledof  lelony.  Or,  it  is  l.ke  the 
person  who  is  not  hungry, he  will  either  not  accept,  or  not  relish 
the  otYered  viands — Or,  the  man  that  is  not  weary,  will  not 
d<'sire  repose.  Though  lor  the  sake  of  the  atonen.entoi  Christ, 
heaven  announces  an  abundance  of  pardon  ;  yet  v\  hilst  sinneis 
view  themselves  either  as  innocent,  or  only  a  little  defective, 
they  will  not  accept  it.  Would  they  think  God  for  the  par- 
don of  ail  their  sins,  when  they  did  not  c<)n>ider  themstU  s 
g'li'ty  of  all,  with  which  they  are  charged  ?  Thus  we  find, 
that  in  the  scriptures  the  hungry,  the  thirsty,  the  \'-eary,  and 
the  heavy  laden,  &c.  are  particularly  invited  to  partake  the 
pardon,  and  the  other  divine  blessings  ;  because  by  such  the 
same  are  highly  appreciated.  Hence  it  n  ay  easily  be  under- 
stood, why  no  one  can  obtain  a  pardon  without  having  con- 
trition.    See  Isa.  66,  2.     Matth.  S,  g,  4,  6. 

It  is  nei'essary  to  know  what  Sin  is,  and  its  'egal,  and  aw. 
ful  consequences,  before  one  can  be  contrite  There  indeed 
remains  a  vestige  of  the  law,  written  upon  the  hearts  of  all 
men,  sufficient  to  convince  them  that  they  are  not  perfectly 
pure,  and  ho'y  ;  but  as  they  are  full  of  blindness,  they  are  not 
able  by  this  light  to  discover  their  real  deformity  ;  neither 
would  it  inform  them  of  the  transgression  of  Adam,  by  whi<  h 
th'y  became  guilty.  H<nce  a  divine  revelation  is  necessary. 
The  law  must  be  revealed  anew,  by  which  is  this  know  ledge. 

By  the  law  the  Holy  Spirit  operates,  to  cc^nvince  men  of 
their  sins.  This  is  evident  from  what  Christ  says  :  'If  I  go 
not  away,  the  comforter  will  rot  come  unto  you  ;  but  if  I  de- 
part, I  will  send  him  unto  y(  u.  And  whrn  he  is  come,  he 
will  reprove  the  world  of  sin,  &e.'  John  16,  7,  8  Tlis 
besides  many  other  texts  shew,  that  the  agency  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  is  necessary  to  reveal  to  men  their  sin^l  depravity  ; 
hence  it  must  be  so  deep,  and  hidden  a  corruption,  that  no 


16^ 

human  reason  can  possibly  penetrate  ;  otherwise  the  influence 
of  this  oniiiiseient  Spirit  wou'd  not  interpose.  It  is  easily 
understood  that  all  gross,  inordinate  desires,  and  external  ac- 
ti' ns,  which  are  contrary  to  the  law  :  such  as  the  piolanauon 
of  God's  name,  adultery,  theft,  murder,  peijury,  und  other, 
immoralities  are  crin  inal,  without  any  particular  reproot  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  It  may  be  understood  even  by  the  letter  of 
the  law,  or  the  light  of  nature.  Hence  as  all  men  may  know, 
that  such  unlawful  actions  are  crimina  without  any  particular 
illumination  of  the  Spirit ;  and  yet,  as  he  is  sent  to  i-eprovethe 
world  of  sin,  it  is  evident  that  there  must  be  such  sins  in  men, 
of  which  they  are  entirely  ignorant  ;  otherwise  the  necessity 
of  this  supernatural  illumination  would  be  superseded.  There 
are  not  only  many  sins  ot  which  i^en  are  ignoi*ant,  but  to  speak 
more  properly,  ignorance  itself  is  criminal.  He  that  is  igno- 
rant cannot  know  that  ignorance  is  a  sin,  unless  he  be  enlight- 
ened by  the  Spirit  ;  because  it  would  be  absurd  to  suppose, 
that  the  ignorant  should  be  intel'igent.  This  ignorance,  I  mean 
the  ignorance  with  respect  to  spiritual  truths,  is  the  c.aise  of 
many  a  wrong  choice  ;  of  the  blackest  crimes  perpetrated  un- 
der the  garb  of  Reliiiion.  As  tor  instance  :  St.  Paul  whilst 
a  Pharisee,  persecuted  the  churcii  of  Christ  through  ignorance. 
It  is  a-tonishing  to  hear,  ho\v  many  who  call  themselves 
Christians,  utterly  deny  that  ignur^nce  with  respect  to  the  sa- 
cred truths  of  Christianity,  is  ciYi^inal.  They  say  many  a 
good  Christian  may  be  innocentlyMgnorant  ol  sundry  things, 
which  are  a  part  of  the  blessed  Religion  of  Christ  ;  if  he  on- 
ly means  we'l,  and  is  sincere  in  his  way  of  thinking,  all  the 
purposes  of  salvation  are  answered.  Because  there  are  many 
different  denominations  who  difler  widely  in  their  sentiments, 
and  as  it  wou'd  contradict  common  sense  itself,  to  suppose 
that  all  when  they  are  repugnant  to  each  other  should  be 
right  ;  yet  in  order  to  have,  as  it  is  vulgarly,  and  erroneously 
called  Charity  for  all,  the  diversity  of  sentiments  is  attributed 
to  ignorance,  which  they  consecrate  as  innocent  errors.  * 


*  It  is  not  mv  intention  in  this  little  work, to  descant  upon  the  various  sen- 
timents ofthe  diffe-ent  denominations,  or  to  sav  wherein  two  may  differ;  & 
yet  both  to  be  genuine  Ch'  istians.  as  this  would  require  a  separate  volume. 
But  my  intention  simply  is  to  shew  that  to  be  ignorant  with  regard  to  such 
doctrines,  as  belong  to  Christianitv,  is  criminal  and  to  check  the  spirit  of 
indiffe-enoe  ,  that  it  is  necessai  v  foi  persons  o*^all  denominations  to  be  open 
for  conviction  an  i  not  to  comfort  themselves  in  their  i«:noiante  It  is  evi- 
dent that  the  cio' trines  of  all  denominations  cannot  be  true;  for  se^•eral 
thnigs  which  contradict  each  other,  cannot  all  he  the  truth.  If  they  be  not 
founded  on  the  truth,  they  rest  on  "alsehood  which  pioceeds  from  the  Dev- 
il.   Let  men  theiefore,  not  be  indifFereiit  in  regard  to  what  tbey  believe. 


167 

If  sach  ignorance  be  no  sin,  or  if  nothing  be  criminal,  but 
?«eh  as  we  know  to  be  wrong,  what  is  leit  for  the  bulj  Spi- 
rit to  reprove  ?  Tliat  which  1  know  to  be  sin,  of  that  1  need 
not  to  be  convinced.  Now  to  suppose,  that  the  Ht  ly  ISpirit 
would  be  sent  to  convince  a  sinner  of  i-ins,  v  iih  v\  hich  he  was 
already  acquainted  w  ould  be  a  burlesque  upon  divine  w  isdom» 
Such  men  therefore,  must  either  deny  the  opeiations  of  the 
Spirit,  or  sec  that  their  assertion,  that  ignerante  is  not  a  sin, 
is  erroneous. 

Whilst  men  are  ignorant,  how  do  they  know  when  they 
mean  wvll,  or  that  they  have  a  sincerity,  \>hieh  is  unsullied  ? 
Ignorance  will  lead  to  mistakes  ;  heiice  such  may  also  be 
mistaken  with  respect  to  their  good  meaning,  and  sincerity. 
The  Psalmist  prayed  'Seaich  n:e,  O  God,  and  know  my 
heart  ;  try  me,  and  know  my  thoughts  :  and  see  if  there  be 
any  wicked  \\d\  in  me,  and  lead  me  in  the  way  of  everlast- 
ing.' Ps,  1§9,  23,  24.  This  shews  that  the  Psalmist  did  not 
confide  in  his  good  meaning,  or  sincerity  ;  that  he  even  was 
not  certain  what  were  the  intentions  o!  his  heart ;  and  lest 
some  wicked  way  might  be  concealed  in  him,  of  which  he 
had  no  knowledge,  he  gives  himself  up  to  the  scrutiny  of  the 
omniscient  Spirit.  What  a  glaring  difference  there  is  between 
this  Old  Testament  Saint,  who  \Aas  diffident  with  respect  to 
his  intentions,  and  feared  that  some  wickedness  might  lurk 
within  him  ;  so  that  he  implored  the  divine  illumination  ;  and 
many  of  the  present  Self-idolizing  professors,  who  put  the 
fullest  reliance  upon  their  good  intentions,  and  sincerity  ;  not- 
withstanding they  be  stupified  by  the  most  shameful  ignorance. 
How  can  they  repent,  whi-nthey  deny  that  to  be  a  sin,  which 
is  a  sin  ?  When  they  call  ignorance  an  innocent  error,  they 
might  as  well  call  guilt,  righteousness.  An  error  is  a  devia- 
tion from  that  which  is  right  ;  hence  to  speak  of  an  innocent 
error  with  respect  to  religion,  is  the  most  vulgar  nonsense. 
It  is  the  same  as  to  say  an  innocent  crime  !  Whilst  men  deny 
that  ignorance  is  a  sin  ;  and  though  they  preach  ever  so  much 
concerning  repentance  ;  yet  are  they  the  decided  foes  to  the 
doctrine  of  repentance. 

The  Psalmist  aUo  prays  'Who  can  understand  his  errors  ? 
cleanse  thou  me  from  my  secret  faultsJ  Ps.  19,  12.  He 
that  cannot  understand  his  errors,  and  prays  to  be  cleansed 
from  his  secret  fau'ts,  thereby  indicates  that  there  are  errors  in 
him,  of  which  he  is  ignorant,  and  from  which  he  conceives  it 
necessary  to  be  cleansed.  Our  Saviour  prayed  for  liis  mur- 
derers :  'Father,  forgive  them  ;  for  they  know  not  wiiat  they 
do.'    Luke  23,  §4.      The  Jews  for  whom  he  prayed,  did  not 


168 

know  they  abused  so  august  a  personage,  as  the  apostle  de- 
ci.ires  .-  '  x\  hich  none  of  the  prmces  oi  the  vvorki  knew  :  lor 
had  thoy  known  it,  th;  y  would  not  have  ciui  itied  the  Lord  of 
glo;y.'  1  Cor.  2,  8.  As  they  crucitied  Christ  through  igno- 
rance, the  question  is,  why  needed  they  forgiveness  ii  theii  ig- 
norance was  noc  criminal  ?  Where  theie  is  a  torgiveness,  a 
crime  is  necessarily  presupposed.  What  foUy  it  v\ould  be,  to 
frgive  innocence  !  Here  we  see  that  ignorance  was  to  be 
fo  given  ;  hence  as  nothing  but  a  crime  can  be  forgiven,  the 
conclusion  is,  ignorance  must  be  a  crime. 

Should  the  Holy  Spirit  by  the  law,  reveal  our  sins  to  us  in 
thrir  original  deformity^  we  should  see  eternal  damnation  as 
just,  and  inevitable  ;  and  if  we  had  not  also  laith  m  Christ, 
we  would  utterly  d -spair.  We  read  of  such  characters  in  ihe 
scriptures,  who  for  the  want  of  faith,  upon  bemg  convicted  of 
their  sins,  despaired.  The  knowledge  of  our  smb  would  be 
no  benelit,  if  we  did  not  see  our  renn  dy  in  Christ. 

Faith  which  is  a  purt  of  repentance,  is  a  condition,  by 
Tivhich  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  apprehended  I'he  word 
faith  is  variously  applied  in  the  scriptuies.  As  for  instance  : 
it  is  used  to  denote  the  Christian  Religion,  and  conlession  of 
the  doctrine  of  Christ.  1  Cor.  2,  5.  Phil  2,  16,  17. 
1  Tim.  1,  18,  19.  Acts  IS,  8.  ch.  If,  27.  There  is  a 
faith  of  miracles.  Matth.  17.  19,  20.  ch  21,21.  Luke  17, 
6.  1  Cor.  12,  9  ch.  IS.  2.  Th  re  is  abo  the  belief  of  the 
existence  of  07ie  God.     James  2,  19, 

Bat  the  word  faith  or  belief,  when  applied  in  the  article 
of  justification,  implies  a  relation  to  the  person  of  Jesus  Chnst 
in  his  mediatorial  character.  Or  it  is  the  act  ot  apprehending 
his  righteousness.  Ii  therefore  implies,  not  only  to  be  convin- 
ced that  such  a  person  as  Jesus  Christ  existed,  and  acted  ;  but 
also  that  we  are  particularly  interested  in  the  same  ;  hence  a 
confidence.  Or  it  is.  when  a  man  attributes  to  his  (  wn  person 
the  meritorious  obedience  of  Christ.  We  read  of  believing  on, 
or  in  Christ  : — 'W^hosoever  belie veth  ??z  him  shall  not  perish, 
but  have  everlasting  life.'  John  3,  16.  ch.  14,  1.  As  be- 
lieving in  Christ,  is  the  distinguishingt  haracteristicof  a  Chris- 
tian ;  hence  to  believe,  is  often  put  absolutely  for  believing  in 
Christ.  Sec  Mark  16,  16.  Acts  4,  43.  It  certainly  implies 
considerably  more  to  believe  in,  or  on  Christ,  than  simply 
to  believe  that  he  existed,  and  acted.  The  prepositions  in, 
and  on  signify  the  re'ationthat  one  has  to  the  person,  and  me- 
rits of  Christ  ;  whereas  one  may  simply  believe  that  such  a 
p  rson  existed,  and  acted  ;  and  yet  be  without  a  conlidence. 
It  must  however,  be  admitted  that  without  being  previously 


169 

persuaded  of  the  truth,  that  such  a  person  as  Jesus  Christ  eX- 
isifd.  and  acted,  it  vvouLt  be  impossible  for  any  one  to  apjily 
his  meritorious  obedience  to  himself.  To  be  convinced  ol  this, 
is  preparatoiy  to  contidetice.  Nevertheless,  it  is  possible  for  a 
man  to  be  convinced  that  there  was  such  a  person  as  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  and  that  he  performed  all  what  the  Siicred  histori- 
ans relate  ;  yet  he  niay  not  go  so  tar  as  to  draw  the  conclu- 
sion, that  Christ  lived,  sutiered,  died,  and  rose  again  from  the 
dead  for  the  purpose  of  saving  his  person.  He  may  be  con- 
vinced of  all  the  facts,  as  recorded  by  the  Evangelists  j  but  as 
he  may  no  be  sensibe  of  his  guilt,  and  his  siate  of  condenuia- 
tion  ;  because  he  does  not  perceive  the  necessity  of  a  help,  he 
is  not  influenced  to  apply  the  obedience  of  Christ  to  his  own 
person.  In  order  to  believe  that  those  facts  transpired,  it  is 
sufficient  if  the  understanding  be  informed  by  credible  testimo- 
nies ;  but  to  be  personally  interested  in  the  same,  the  heart 
must  agree,  or  confide.  It  therefore,  is  not  only  an  act  of  the 
understanding,  but  also  that  of  the  heart,  as  we  are  informed 
by  the  apostle  : — 'If  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth  the 
JLord  Jesus,  and  shall  believe  in  thine  heart,  that  God  hath 
raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  sav^d.  For  vAith  the 
heart  man  believethe  unto  righteousness  ;  &c.'  Rom.  10.  9, 
10.  Thus  it  is  not  only,  that  the  understanding  is  convinced 
of  the  truth  ;  but  it  is  aNo  realized  by  the  heart,  which  plainly 
implies  a  confidence.  That  the  ancient  Samts  by  faith,  appli- 
ed the  promises  to  their  particular  persons,  or  that  they  had  a 
confidence,  may  be  seen  from  various  texts.  See  Gal.  2,  20» 
2  Tim.  4,  8.     1  J  .hn  §,  2.     2  Cor.  5,  1. 

The  writer  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  gives  this  defini- 
tion : — 'Now  faith  is  the  substance  of  things  hoped  for.  the  e- 
vidence  of  th'ngs  not  seen.'  Ch.  11,  1.  He  defines  it  suita- 
ble to  his  arguments,  and  in  the  following  verses,  produces 
sundry  examples  of  the  exercise  oi  faith  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Faith  agreeable  to  this,  has  a  relation  to  invisible 
things.  In  so  far  as  faith  rests  upon  invisible  things,  hope 
corresponds  with  it  ;  yet  hope  has  a  relation  to  future 
things  ;  whereas  faith  must  not  necessarily  relate  to  that 
which  is  future,  but  only  to  what  is  invisible  :  whether  pres- 
ent, or  future.  The  word  which  is  translated  sitftsfance,  in 
the  origrinal,  is  v/tojasij,  from  v^iga^ai,  to  be  placed,  or  stand 
under — from.t^rto,  w/n/er,  and  i?)j/^c,  or  the  passive  tfajuai.  to 
stand,  or  to  be  placed  It  is  userl  for  a  basis,  or  founrlation. 
This  plainly  shews  that  faith,  though  it  relates  to  invisible 
hings  ;  yet  it  must  imply  a  confidence  in  the  divine  promises, 

.Faith  is  a  condition  of  justifi'^ation  ;  hence  it  is  erroneous  to 

W 


170 

suppose  that  it  is  merely  necessary  as  an  evidence,  tiy  which 
we  {.irL  St  iiqb  c  oi  our  iiitcre»l  lU  C  u  ist.  To  ki.ow  tiuit  1  am 
iu-tilied,  IS  n)t  the  reus  n  vvny  1  am  jusLified.  >iii  iiian  can 
kiio>v  )\  any  interest  in  Carisi,  wiihuut  liaxing  such  p.  eviiius- 
ly.  There  is  a  dni'ieii-e  bet/.'een  laith  itst-h,  and  the  percep- 
tion thereof,  li  fai  ii  and  the  perception  tiitreot  were  the 
same,  no  man  coulsl  be  a  believer,  but  otiiy  wh^n  he  was  sen- 
sible Oi  .t.  Tiie  a '0:.  le  says  'E.'iamine  yourse'ves,  wiieiher 
ye  be  in  the  taitii  ;  prove  your  Ovvn-elves.'  2  Cor.  Ig.  5. 
By  a  S;>1;'  es.aminatie.a  a  man  may  ascertain  whether  he  pos- 
ses>es,  or  IS  destituie  oiTaith.  A  seli-examination  presu)  po- 
se>,  that  we  may  eitiiei-  posses,  or  b-  desitute  o'.a  thmg  -Aith- 
out  being  sensible  oi'  it.  Tiie  sell"  examination  is  for  the  pur- 
pose or'  making  the  discovery.  A  man  \\  ho  knevA  that  he  liad 
no  tuitn  ;  and  yet  exa-iiined  himself,  would  be  like  one  that 
seeks  for  a  thing,  which  he  knows  does  not  exist.  \Vh(  reas 
he,  who  at  a'l  times  was  sensible  of  his  faith,  would  be  in  hie 
self  examination  like  one  that  atteu. pled  to  ascertain,  wheth- 
er he  was  in  existence.  What  one  is  sensible  of,  is  seli-evi 
dent  ;  and  a  self-evident  thing  needs  no  examinntion  to  ascer- 
tain its  existence.  H'  nee  as  Ciiristians  are  exhorted  to  exa- 
mine themselves  whether  tl'.ey  l)e  in  the  faith,  it  must  be  con- 
cluded that  a  man  may  have  faith  ;  and  yet  in  consequence  of 
many  temptitions,  and  other  causes  may  not  be  sensible  of  it. 
Thus  laith  is  not  merely  to  make  us  sensible  of  our  inteiest  in 
Christ,  but  it  is  a  necessaiy  condition  of  apprehending  hie 
righteousness,  and  applying  it  to  our  persons. 

It  is  eri-oneous  to  teach,  that  for  whomsoever  Christ  died, 
must  also  in'"a(lib!y  be  saved  ;  yea  that  such  are  already  saved  ;., 
and  that  faith  is  only  necessary  for  such  to  become  sensible  of 
th'"ir  interest  in  him.  Hence  such  as  believe  an  uncondition- 
al election,  believe  that  Christ  died  for  n  nf",  but  for  su  h  as 
will  be  saved.  Without  faith  it  is  impc-sible  to  please  God. 
Heb.  11.  6.  If  we  cannot  please  God  without  faith,  it  is  ev- 
ident that  by  faith  we  may  plea-e  him  ;  hence  faith  is  not 
merely  necessai-y  to  fiiul  out  that  we  please  him,  but  by  it  we 
please  him.  When  God  has  chosen  a  sinner  unto  salvation, 
we  are  not  to  suppose  that  he  is  chosen  \>  it  bout  a  foreseen 
faith  in  him.  It  is  out  of  the  question  for  God  to  elect  a  sin- 
ner unto  salvation,  uidefs  he  please  him  ;  and  by  fidth  oidy  he 
can  please  him  ;  hence  without  faith  hecann(;t  be  chosen.  If 
the  sinner  be  elected  from  eternity,  he  must  also  have  pleaded 
God  from  eternity  ;  by  faith  only  he  can  please  him  ;  hence 
God  from  eternity  must  foresee  this  faith  ;  othei'wise  fiiere 
could  be  no  election.  To  suppose  that  the  sinner  p'eased  God 
from  eternitv  without  faith  ;  so  that  he  could  elect  him  unto 


in 

eternal  life  ;  and  yet  that  in  time  the  sinner  cannot  please  him 
uiti'.out  iaith,  is  at  once  saymi;"  Gxl's  nnnd  is  changeable  : 
that  once  the  sinner  pleased  lu^n  withont  faith  ;  so  that  he 
could  he  eh  i.-en  :  an  !  aguin  that  in  time  he  could  not  he  [)lea- 
sed  with  the  sinner,  but  by  his  aiith.  Such  a  changeableness 
cannot  he  ascrilied  to  a  perfect  su|)ienie  beng. 

The  sacred  scriptuies  indeed  teach  an  electionj  but  not  such, 
as  is  without  a  condition.  When  tv\  o  tliini'S  are  aiike,  neitlier 
the  one,  nor  the  other  can  be  chosen  :  loi-  v\  here  there  is  no 
difference,  there  can  be  no  prciercnce.  Ii  is  not  disputed, 
but  one,  or  the  other  might  be  accepted  through  an  inditierent 
chance  ;  but  not  by  a  ratinnal  chnce  :  beccaij>e  there  can  be 
no  choice  w  ithout  a  difference  in  the  objects.  All  n\en  are  sin- 
iieis  al  ke  by  nature — tbeie  is  i  o  d.fiercnce.  Kcni.  3.  22,23. 
N}u  as  there  is  no  dilfercnee  between  suuiers,  \vhat  nsay  be 
the  reason,  that  God  chooses  one  in  preference  to  anethei  ? 
Thet-e  mu'^t  certaady  be  some  conditicn  :  for  the  \c\y  idea  of 
an  el-ction  impli' s  tlvdt  thi>  thing,  or  person  chosen,- n:u«t  ei« 
ther  he  more  valuable  m  itseli',  or  connected  with  an  <  I  ject 
which  makes  it  so,  than  that  \\  hich  is  not  chc'Sen.  It  has  ai- 
re dy  Meen  shewn,  that  all  nn  r.  are  sinners  alike  by  nature  ; 
hence  God  cannot  choose  one  in  preierence*  to  anoihei",  be- 
cause of  any  suMcrior  moral  exeebence.  Jrsus  Chiist  !^  the 
mediator  brtween  God,  and  man  ;  infitiiie'y  valued  by  all  the 
holy  angels  ;  the  pe  uliar  delight  (d  his  Father  ;  hence  the 
sinner  who  by  faith  is  <onnected  with  him.  stands  in  so  super- 
lative a  rtdation,  that  there  is  a  supcrabun'^ant  reason,  wh\  (he 
divine  wisdom  choose--  hitn  as  an  heir  of  salvation.  Si.  P.ul 
represents  believers,  as  being  chosen  in  Chiist  before  tie  fonn- 
dati  n  of  the  world.  Eph,  1,  8,  4  No  loan  can  be  in  Ohi  ist, 
so  as  to  be  saved,  nnlc-s  he  have  aith  ;  h'  nee  to  be  chosen  in 
Clirist  before  the  foundation  of  the  worb',  implies  a  foreseen 
faith  from  eternity,  widch  is  a  sufficient  ground  of  election. 
Now  if  the  Ca'vinistic  doctiine  O'  un^  onc'itional  ejection  were 
true,  the  sinner  could  not  be  chosen  in  Christ  before  the  foun- 
dation of  the  worltl  ;  because  this  do<-trine  supposes  the  sin- 
ner chosen  unto  faith,  i.  e.  chosen  not  because  of  any  foreseen 
faith,  but  chosen  in  order  to  be  made  a  believer.  This  doc- 
trine supposes  God  to  choose  one  sinner  before  another,  with- 
out having  any  regard  to  his  relation  to  Christ  ;  hence  with- 
out viewing  any  difference  as  the  ground  of  preference.  This 
of  course  cannot  be  an  eliction,  but  the  grasping  of  a  sinner 
out  of  a  multitude  by  an  inditVerent  chance  ;  because  it  is  im- 
po-;sible  'or  a  choice  to  take  place,  unles  there  be  a  ditiferen-  e 
i)etween  the  several  objects,  or  between  their  relations^    We 


178 

are  informed  by  the  apostle,  not  that  God  by  an  indifferent 
Cii.inoe  liad  grasped  the  Saints  outui  t^ie  ij.ultiiude  oi  mankind, 
but  that  he  had  chosen  them  in  Cmist ;  hence  as  they  are  m 
him  by  fanh,  faith  is  the  condition  oi  their  justification  ;  hence 
ii  :s  not  merely  to  make  us  sensible  ot  our  inte^e^t  in  Christ. 

It  is  contrary  to  the  principes  of  justice,  to  mipute  tht  good, 
or  evil  deeds  ot"  another  to  us,  unless  we  consent  to  the  same, 
or  are  connected  with  his  person.  The  transgression  of  Ad 
an  would  not  be  imputed  to  us  :  provided  we  could  not  with 
propriety  he  viewed  as  being  connected  wiih  him  in  his  C'  n- 
duct.  Neither  can  the  righteousness  of  Christ  ^^ith  justice  be 
imputed  to  us,  unless  we  be  connected  with  him  by  faith. 

St.   Paul  contrasts  Adam  with  Christ  :  he  calls  the  former 
a  ftiiure  of  the  latter.    Rom.  5,  14.     And  v.  15,  he  says  'But 
not  as  the  oftence,  so  also  is  the  free  gift.      For  if  through  the 
offence  of  one  many  be  dead,  much  more  the  grace  of  God, 
and  the  gilt  by  grace,  ichicli  ishy  one  man,  Jesus  Christ,  hath 
abounded  unto  many.'    And  v.   18,   'Therefore  as  by  the  of- 
fence of  one  judgment  cairie  upon  all  men  to  condemnation  ; 
even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one  the  free  gift  came  upon 
al'  men  unto  justification  of  life,'     It  is  to  be  observed,  that  the 
contrast  which  is  here  made,  is  such  :  that  as  Adam  by  his 
disobedience  brought  sin  and  condemnation  upon  al!  ;  even  so 
Clirist  by  his  obedi-^-nce  brought  the  justification  ot  life  upon  all 
men.     This  contrast  induces  many  to  conclude,    that  if  the 
word  all,  as  it  is  applied  to  the  justifica'ion  of  liie  could  not  be 
restricted  ;    so  as  to  signiSy  all  the  elect  only,  that  all  men 
would  intallibly  be  saved,  without  having  a  legard  to  faith  as 
a  condition  :  but  as  they  do  not  believe  that  all  men  will  be 
saved,  they  limit  the  word   all  ;  so  as  only  to  mean  a  part  : 
for  they  cannot  conceive  how  Christ  should  have  made  an  a- 
tnnement  for  any  ;  unless  they  also  be  justified.     This  conclu- 
sion arises  from  a  wrong  view  of  faith,  and  not  ob.'-erving  the 
distinction  between  the  meritorious  obedience  of  Christ  itself, 
and  the  application  of  the  same  to  one's  own  person.     If  faith 
be  a  condition  of  our  justification,  then  no  sinner  can  be  saved 
without  it,  notwithstanding  the  perfect  atonement  made  by 
Christ  ;  whereas  if  by  faith  \\  e  only  get  sensible  of  our  inter- 
est in  him,  then  we  are  sufficiently  safe  without  faith  :  provi- 
ded we  are  of  the  number  for  whom  Christ  died.     To  be  made 
sensible  of  our  interest  in  Christ,  adds  nothing  to  it  ;  because 
to  be  made  sensible  of  it,  presupposes  that  we  have  such  al- 
ready.    I*'  we  have  an  interest  in  Christ,  we  are  just  as  safe, 
as  if  we  knew  it.      The  culprit  who  is  pardoned  before  he 
knows  it.  is  as  little  in  danger  of  being  executed,  as  the  one 


178 

who  sees  the  pardon  before  him  :  all  the  difference  is,  tliat  the 
former  is  in  a  leanul  suspense,  whilst  the  latitr  is  hlied  with 
consolation.  But  as  the  scripiures  in  many  texts  prove,  that 
we  are  justified  by  faith  ;  (hence  it  is  a  c  ndition,  )  it  n.ust  be 
a  most  fallacious  conclusion  :  that  for  vvhumsoever  Christ  di- 
ed will  also  be  infallibly  saved.  This  would  be  true,  il  laith 
was  not  a  condition,  but  only  a  perception  of  salvation  :  tor 
then  the  death ot  Christ  would  protit  every  one,  lor  whom  it 
was  made  ;  and  sooner,  or  later  such  would  be  made  sensible 
of  it.  The  word  all,  as  appl.ed  to  the  justification  of  life,  cer- 
tainly includes  the  whole  human  famil}  ;  because  it  is  used  in 
such  a  connexion  that  it  can  have  no  other  meaning  :  ior  the 
text  plainly  shews  that  the  same  All,  upon  whom  came  judg- 
ment unto  condemnation,  also  can  e  the  justiiication  oi  lite. 
Now  not  only  a  part  were  under  condemnation,  but  all  with- 
out restriction  ;  hence  the  same  all  are  redeemed  by  Christ* 
The  text  shews  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  came  upon 
all  men  in  the  same  sence,  that  c*  ndemnation  can>e  upon  all 
by  the  disobedience  of  Adam.  But  how  does  condemnation 
come  upon  all  men  by  the  disobedience  ol  Adam  ?  Thty  in- 
deed are  under  the  sentence  of  condemnation,  but  they  are  not 
all  eternally  punished.  They  in  consequence  ot  the  fall  are 
sinners,  and  under  the  sentence  of  condemnation,  which 
would  certainly  be  executed  upon  all,  and  they  be  punished, 
if  some  of  them  did  not  take  their  refuj.:e  in  Christ.  In  the 
same  manner  the  justification  of  life  came  upon  all  men  thiough 
Christ  :  viz.  if  they  through  unbelief  did  not  reject  his  right- 
eousness, they  would  be  saved.  If  they  do  not  believe,  they 
will  as  little  be  saved,  though  Christ  died  for  them  ;  as  th(  se 
will  be  sentenced  on  the  day  of  judgment  to  eternal  punish- 
ments, who  believed  in  Christ,  though  they  lell  in  Adam,  and 
were  under  the  sentence  of  condemnation.  If  the  doctrine  be 
true,  that  if  Christ  died  for  all,  that  all  must  necessaiily  be 
saved,  it  would  be  equally  true,  that  because  all  fell  in  Adam, 
and  are  obnoxious  to  the  curse,  that  therefore  they  must  also 
be  eternally  punished  But  who  can  believe  that  all  n  en,  be- 
cause they  fell  in  A'lam,  wil!  be  eternally  punished  ?  The 
general  atonement  of  Christ,  does  not  yet  prove  a  general  sal- 
vation. To  prove  a  ijeneral  salvation,  it  is  necessary  first  to 
prove,  that  all  men  will  believe,  and  apply  it  to  their  persons* 
If  this  can  be  done,  then  on'y  it  can  he  said,  that  there  is  a 
general  restoration  A  privilege  offered  to  a  thousand  per- 
s  ;ns,  will  not  benefit  the  individuals  of  this  number,  unless  it, 
be  individually  enjoyed.  Neither  va  ill  the  general  atonement 
of  Christ  benefit  any  individual^,  unless  he  by  faith  applies  it 
to  his  own  person. 


IMPROVEMENT. 


■Repentance  consists  in  a  contrition  for  sin,  and  faith  ia 
Chiist.  A  contrition  necessarily  presuppf>ses  a  knowledge  of 
sin.  A  man  is  the  nearest  to  him.sef  :  and  yet  trequently  he 
is  better  acquainted  with  other  objects,  than  he  is  v^ilh  hinsse  f. 
He  dreads  his  enemies,  because  he  conceives  they  arc  deier- 
mined  on  his  ruin  ;  but  if  he  properly  knew  himseh,  he  would 
believe  himself  to  be  in  a  greater  danger  :  lor  none  of  his  en- 
emies are  as  near,  as  he  -s  to  himself. 

They  who  only  consider  unlawful  actions  as  criminal,  and 
would  repent  for  such,  are  like  one  that  would  stop  the  stream, 
and  yet  suffer  the  flow  of  the  fountain.  All  unlawful  actions 
proceed  from  wicked  motives.  I  ven;ure  to  afliim,  that  if  a 
man  could  be  placed  in  such  a  situation,  as  to  be  preventet 
from  committing  unlawful  actions  ;  that  yet,  he  in  the  judg. 
ment  of  God  would  be  worthy  of  punishnT  nt,  in  consequence 
of  his  wricked  heart  and  desires.  A  man  may  be  an  adulterer, 
thief,  murderer,  &c.  before  he  commits  adultery,  steals,  n-ur- 
ders,  &c.  because  his  h-art  conceives  ah  such  wicked  de- 
sires. It  is  horrid  to  hear  some  men,  who  boast  of  being  per- 
fect saints  affirm. that thougli  they  should  have  wicked  thoughts, 
and  desires  ;  yet  if  they  did  not  commit  the  actions,  to  which 
they  are  tempted,  that  they  would  lie  innocent  !  O  blinded  I 
filthy  !  self  righteous  Pharisees  !  how  will  ye  escape  the  dani- 
n  ition  of  hell,  when  ye  will  not  own  your  wicked  lusts  to  be 
criminal  !  St.  James  says  'every  man  is  tempted,  when  he 
is  drawn  away  of  his  own  lust,  and  enticed.'     ch.  1,    14. 

When  we  get  sensible  of  our  sins,  we  must  also  confess 
lh<^m.  Under  the  Levitical  priesthood,  when  the  annual  sin- 
off -ring  was  made,  the  sins  of  the  people  were  confessed.  Lev* 
16,  ^l.  The  nious  P-almist  was  ingenuous  in  his  confession  : 
'I  acknowledged  my  sin  unto  thee,  and  mine  iniquity  have  I 
not  h'd.  I  said,  I  will  confess  my  transgressions  unt"  the 
I^ord  ;  and  thou  ^brgavest  the  iniquity  of  my  sin.'  Ps.  32,  5. 
St.  John  says  'If  we  confess  our  sins,  he  [God]  is  faith'ul 
and  just  to  foro:iveus  our  sins,  and  to  cleanse  us  from  all  un- 
righteousness.' 1  Epist  1,  9.  Thus  we  see  how  a  pardon 
inthedi.ine  tribunal,  succeeds  the  confession  of  sin.  How 
vastly  different  are  the  proceedings  of  an  earthly  tribunal  ! 
If  the  culprit  before  an  earthly  tribunal  should  confess  his 
crime,  his  confession  would  be  taken  as  evidence  against  him- 
self ;  whereupon  he  would  be  sentenccfl  to  receive  the  merit- 
ed punishment.  But  in  the  divine  tribunal  a  confession  oC 
guilt,  is  a  condition  of  justification. 


17i5 

When  our  sins  arc  pardoned,  not  only  some,  but  all  with- 
out except un  are  parduticd  ,  as  it  would*  be  no  benelit  tu  a 
sinner,  it  only  sonjcand  not  al  were  puidintd  :  lor  only  one 
unpardoned  crime  would  rauler  htm  cbiicxitus  to  punishnient. 
If  wc  must  have  a  pardon  tor  all  our  sins,  it  is  equally  neces- 
sary that  we  should  also  conless  them  all,  v^itlioui  any  excep- 
tion. But  as  it  has  already  been  shewn,  that  v>e  are  guiiiy 
of  many  sins,  with  which  we  are  not  atquainled,  it  night  be 
asked  :  how  is  it  possible  to  contess  evu^  sin  ?  There  is  no 
dititiculty  in  it,  w  hen  we  cunicss  that  ail  our  thoughts,  desires, 
actions,  and  imagination,  ever  since  we  aie  in  txistence,  in 
so  far  as  they  have  not  been  guided  by  divine  grace,  arc  wick- 
ed ;  yea  that  we  are  natura  iy  dcpravtd.  feuch  a  con  essun 
is  replete,  no  sin,  even  such,  va  ith  which  we  are  not  atquain- 
ted  will  be  excluded  ;  and  we  are  in  no  danger  ol  conlet>stng 
a  falsehood  ;  as  this  is  the  character  oi  ail  n.en  by  nature, 
-which  is  attested  by  the  scriptures.  The  reason  \\ hy  u  any 
persons  are  not  benefitted  by  their  confession,  is,  becaubc  they 
on:y  confess  some  known,  and  glaung  s.ns.  feuch  a  confes- 
sion is  very  deficient,  and  so  superhcial,  that  it  includes  the 
very  least  of  a  man's  w  ickedness.  It  is  in  vain  lor  a  man  to 
attempt  to  particularize  all  his  sins,  and  to  OChciibe  thtm  with 
words  in  an  auricular  confession  ;  becau^e  ^uch  woud  he  im- 
possible. Such  as  deny  that  ignorance  is  a  sin,  require  oi  their 
hearers  a  confession  on!}-,  of  their  known  sins  ;  and  thus  they 
examine  them  at  stated  times  with  the  interrogation  :  what 
known  sins  have  you  lived  in  since  our  last  meeting  r  are  you 
willing  to  repent  for  such,  and  amend  your  life  ?  O  blinded 
Pharisees  1  filthy  dreamers  !  ought  you  not  to  be  ashamed  of 
your  patch-work  I  To  confess  only  one's  known  sins,  is  no- 
thing but  nonsense  i.  e.  if  done  with  a  view  to  be  pardoned. 
For  if  the  sins  committed  through  ignorance  be  not  also  con- 
fessed, and  pardoned,  let  no  oneconiibrt  himself:  for  he  may 
not  expect  any  salvation.  It  is  evident  that  if  we  sin  against 
our  neighbour,  that  \n  e  should  particularly  confess  our  laults 
to  him  ;  (James  5,  16  )  so  that  he  might  forgive  us,  in  so  fat- 
as  he  may  have  been  offended.  But  to  pardon  all  our  sins,  is 
an  act  w  hich  belongs  to  God  only  ;  hence  no  particular  con- 
fession of  a  few  known  sins  will  suffice;  but  the  confession 
must  include  every  sin.  If  our  confession  be  replete,  equal-y 
so  will  be  the  pardon. 

It  has  been  shewn  that  ij^norance  with  respect  to  spiritual 
things,  is  criminal.  St.  Paul  says '^  A  wake  to  righteousness, 
and  sin  not  ;  for  some  have  not  the  knowledge  of  God  :  I 
speak  this  to  your  shame.'     1  Cor»  15,  34»     The  prophet 


176 

concludes,  that  such  ignorant  persons  are  beneath  the  stand- 
ing ol  beasts,  when  he  says  :  'The  ox  knoweth  his  owner, 
and  the  ass  his  master's  ciib  ;  but  Israel  doth  not  know,  my 
people  doth  nt  consider.'     l^a.  1,  3. 

But  there  is  u  clitiert-nce  between  being  ignorant,  and  illite- 
rate. VVhtn-eas  the  holy  scriptures  chietly  are  written  m  a 
piain,  familiar  language,  unlearned  persons,  when  they  hear 
them  read,  or  doctrines  mierred  ti'om  them  by  way  ol'preaih- 
ing,  may  by  a  careful  attention  obtain  correct  views  with  re- 
spect to  spiritual  things.  The  bodily  eyeof  an  unlearned  man, 
may  be  as  sound  as  that  of  the  learned,  and  is  as  capable  of 
beholding  an  object  ;  and  if  in  case  the  eyes  of  the  latter  be 
shut,  and  those  of  the  former  open,  he  certainly  has  a  consii- 
derable  advantage.  The  same  may  be  said  with  respect  to 
the  mental  lacuKies.  The  unlearned  man  has  the  same  ra- 
tional faculty  as  the  leained  ;  hence  is  as  capable  of  perceiv- 
ing  spiritual  things.  Whdst  the  mental  faculties  of  the  learned 
continue  closed  against  the  light  of  heaven,  he  with  all  his  li- 
terary accomplishmtnts,  cannot  have  as  correct  views  ot  spi- 
ritual things,  as  the  unlearned,  who  suffered  the  Holy  Ghost, 
by  the  sacred  word,  to  open,  and  illumine  the  eyes  of  his  un- 
derstanding  :  for  'the  testimony  of  the  Lord  is  sure,  makmg 
wise  the  simple.'  Ps.  19,  7.  This  is  confirmed  by  our 
blessed  Saviour  :  'I  thank  thee'  says  he,  'O  Father^  Lord  of 
Heaven  and  earth,  because  thou  hast  hid  these  things  from  the 
w^ise  and  prudent,  and  hast  revealed  them  unto  babes.'  ^.atth. 
11,  25.  Although  the  unleaiiied,  or  babes  are  not  able  to 
write,  or  preach  the  gospel  to  others,  as  this  requires  a  pecu- 
liar genius,  the  knowledge  of  letters,  and  the  art  of  eloquence  ; 
yet  they  may  perceive  the  spiritual  things,  and  each  of  them 
may  (if  without  ostentation.)  declare:  '1  have  more  under- 
standing than  all  my  tea  "hers  :  *  for  thy  testimonies  are  my 
meditation.  I  understand  'porp  lh;in  the  :incients,  because  I 
keep  thy  precepts.'  Ps.  119,99,  100.  Hence  the  complaint 
of  many  who  call  themselves  Christians,  is  most  disgraceful. 
They  say,  whilst  there  are  so  many  teachers,  w  ho  differ  in  th(  ir 
doctrines,  we  cannot  know  who  teaches  the  truth  ;  hence  do 
not  know  whom  we  are  to  believe,  or  with  whopi  to  associ- 
ate. Such  because  they  do  not  see  all  the  teachers  united, 
cannot  satisfy  themselves  with  respect  to  the  truth  Fn  m 
what  they  say,  it  se  ms  if  all,  or  the  majority  of  teachers  a- 
greed  in  doctiiu's,  they  would  believe  the  truth  without  any 
difficulty.     This  plainly  shews  that  they  wish  to  found  their 


*  That  is,  such  teachera  whose  understandings  are  not  enlightened  by  the 
Holy  Spirit. 


177 

faith  upon  the  authority  of  men.  They  could  then  believe, 
bec.iuse  tiie  leaclioi  >  agreed  in  doctniie,  win  out  beirii;  ai  the 
trouble  of  exanunmg  lor  themselves.  V\  hat  bareiaced  idiUi- 
ters  !  How  they  seek  to  put  their  trusi  in  n  en  !  Let  such  be 
in  a  proper  situation  towards  tlie  means  ot  giace,  and  pay  as 
much  attention  to  the  y;o>pel,  as  they  do  to  niany  other  ihiiigs  ; 
and  I  here  is  no  doubt  but  vvliat  thei>  intel'.eetual  e}es  sha  i  be 
opened,  and  illjmiued  by  the  blessed  tiutli  ;  and  tliey  f>hai;  be 
anointed,  and  sealed  by  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  so  that  they  will  be 
n  >  longer  in  suspense.  Christ  say^  'My  doctime  is  not  mine, 
but  his  that  sent  me.  If  any  man  v\ill  do  his  will,  he  ^hall 
know  oi  the  doctrme,  whether  it  be  of  God,  or  whether  I 
speak  of  myself.'     John  7,  Lb,  17. 

It  is  in  vain  for  a  uian  to  nupp  )se,  that  he  believes  in  Christ, 
when  he  never  suffered  himsell  to  be  convinced  by  the  law  of 
his  deep  vlepravity  ;  of  liis  state  of  condenmution.  The  law 
was  before  the  gospel,  and  it  must  needs  perform  its  ofiice  in 
revealing  sin,  and  shewing  the  wiatij  of  God,  before  the  gos- 
pel can  impart  its  comforts.  When  the  sinner  is  terrified  by 
the  law,  he  may  at  hrst  conceive  God  to  be  angry  with  him, 
which  would  also  be  the  case,  if  there  was  no  mediator  ;  but 
un  ler  his  ever  blessed  dispensation,  God  only  by  this  law 
terrifies  the  sinner  ;  so  that  he  may  be  in  a  situation  to  re- 
ceive the  most  superabundant  consolati<jn.  Let  him  therelbre, 
who  got  bereft  o\  his  imaginary  righteousness,  by  the  penetra- 
ting flashes  of  the  law  ;  so  that  his  spirit  feels  wounded,  na- 
ked, and  full  of  poverty  be  encouraged  :  for  the  L(  rd  de- 
clares— 'to  this  mun  will  £  look,  even  to  htm  that  is  p' or,  and 
of  a  'ontrite  spirit,  and   trembleth  at  my  w<>rd.'     Isa    66,  2, 

Although  a  hatred  against  sin  for  the  sake  of  its  odio  ;s- 
ness,  does  not  accurately  speaking,  constitute  a  part  O;  rcp'n- 
tance  ;  yet  by  discoverinj^the  consequ-nces  to  which  it  leads  : 
the  separation  it  has  made  between  the  cr<  ature  and  the  cre- 
ator ;  the  eternal  exclusion  from  all  happiness  ;  the  sinner 
will  leain  to  despise  it  ;  because  he  has  sufficient  motives  to 
despise  that  which  is  the  cause  of  his  misery  Whilst  men 
are  of  the  opinion,  that  to  live  in  sin,  is  a  benefit  to  them,  that 
it  affords  them  some  satisfaction,  and  pleasure,  it  is  in  v. in  to 
exhort  them  to  hate  it  :  for  who  \yould  hate  that  which  he 
believed  afforded  him  a  benefit  ? 

Although  a  sinner  must  repent,  in  order  to  be  justified  ;  yet 
even  the  believer  must  also  daily  repent,  because  he  is  fre- 
quently drawn  aside  by  the  inbred  corruptions  of  his  nature, 
H"  that  knows  th  tt  a  saint  has  yet  to  strive  against  the  tlesb, 
also  knows,  ihat  he  does  not  live  vvithoui  repentance, 

-3^ 


V7& 
FRAGMENT   Vlt 


It  IS  sliewn  that  in  the  person  of  a  heliever.  there  yet  i  emaini  sin  :  Or  whilst 
lie  hvfs  in  iliis  woild,  ih-j  =truc  between  -lie  Hcshan,.  liie  spirit  continues- 

A  j;istiH«'cl  person  is  represented  by  the  scriptures,  as  cue 
that  <ioei  not  commit  sin;  iunceas  innueeni;  and  tuveitheiess 
al-'O,  a-,  u  Sinner.  St.  Jolin  says  '  V\  hofcoevt^r  i»  hern  ci  God 
duLii  noi  comniit  s  n  ;  .or  his  seed  remain^  til  iTi  him  ;  and  he 
c^nnjt  Sin,  bcvaiisti  he  is  lorii  oi  God.  1st  cpist.  ch.  3,  9» 
T  lis  together  »vith  sundry  uther.  texts,  thai  might  hi-  quoted 
prjve  i.ut  a  e:.;eiiera.od  p^rsj  i  ,i-»esn.»t  sin,  because  iie  -.s  pes- 
se^se  I  OI  ho  y  principles.  Btii  on  the  coniraiy  ^veare  also  m- 
ioimed,  tiiai  he  is  yet  a  sinnci-.  Tlius : —  'Fo;-  we  kii«  vv  ti.at 
th,  law  ij,  spiritual:  but  1  am  carnal,  sold  un  Itr  sin.  For  that 
wiii  h  I  do  I  ai  ownoi :  lor  what  1  wou'd,  that  do  I  net;  but 
wha;  I  :iatc,  tliai  do  I.  If  then  I  doihat  w  hit-h  I  \\(;uhi  not, 
I  L  )ii-eni  unto  the  lavv  that  it  is  ^ood.  Nuv\  th  n  it  is  no  nsore 
1  that  lo  it,  but  sin  that  dwell  th  in  me.  F'-r  1  know  that  in 
n\.^  (that  is,  in  ^n'  flesh.)  d  wt.llelh  ju>  ^ood  thing  :  tor  to  u  i  1 18 
present  with  me  ;  but  h  uc  to  peitomi  that  whi^h  is  good  1  lind 
not.  For  the  good  tiiat  1  would  1  do  not:  but  the  evi!  which 
I  wou  d  not  that  I  do.  Now  i  1  d.o  that  I  would  not.  it  is  no 
more  I  that  do  it,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  in  n  e.  J  tind  then  a 
law,  tliat.  when  I  would  do  good,  evil  is  present  with  me. 
F  >r  I  d  "1  ght  n  the  law  of  Ga.l  after  the  inward  u  an.  But  I 
see  another  law  in  my  members,  warring  against  the  law  of  n  j 
niin  I,  and  bringing  me  into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin  whi(h 
is  in  my  members.  O  wretched  man  that  1  am  !  uhi.  shall 
deliver  me  from  the  body  o  this  deiith?'  Rom.  7,  14-24. 
Ho>v  plainly  this  proves,  that  no  Christian  is  destitute  oi  snful 
propensities.  Again — 'If  ye  through  the  spirit  do  mortify  the 
deeds  of  the  bo  ly,  ye  shall  live.'  ch.  8,  lo.  Now.  an  mirc- 
generat;  fl  person  wa'ks  after  the  flesh,  and  is  destitute  of  the 
Spirit;  hence  it  is  out  oi"  the  question  for  him  to  mortify  the 
deeds  of  the  body.  Oidy  such  in  v.  bom  the  Spirit  dwells,  run 
tnorti*}'  the  deeds  of  the  flesh ;  hence  none  but  the  regenerat'  d  ; 
c^Misr-qu'-ntly  as  the}'  are  to  mortify  the  deeds  of  the  flesh,  it  is 
evident  that  they  must  po-sess  sinful  desires.  Again — 'The 
flesh  Insteth  against  the  Spirit,  and  the  Spirit  against  theflesh: 
ani  these  are  cojitrary  the  one  to  the  other:  so  tliat  ve  cannot 
do  th"  things  t'lat  ve  would.'    G::l.  .^,17.    See  Ps  51,  10,  11. 

That  the  scriptures  represent  a  justified  person  as  being  w  ithv 


179 

out  sin,  hence  as  holy  ;  and  yet  also,  as  sinful  and  unholy,  is  no 
coiiiradiction  ;  bocuuSi.'  us  these  twu  dir.tiiivi  p  iiuijj.es  exist  in 
hiiii,  it  may  with  propriety  be  ^alll,lhat  acci.ioui^  lu  ilir  hpirit, 
or  the  new  man,  lie  is  without  sin,  and  iiuly  ;  but  uccurtiingto 
the  fle»h,or  theoid  man,  he  ts  a  sinner.  Let  it  not  be  Mippi.sed 
that  only  the  spirit,  or  new  nian  t  \\ells>  m  ihe  soul,  vNluiyt  tlie 
fl 'sh.  or  old  man  only  exists  in  the  natural  body.  1^  has  ai- 
reafiy  been  shewn  that  the  rteii,  partieularly  w  hen  it  is  opposed 
to  tiie  spirit,  sijjniHes  a  wi-ked  principFe  in  the  soul.  Like 
til  irns  and  wheat  grow  upon  the  same  ground,  6%  en  so  the 
flesli,  and  the  spim  bodi  exist  in  the  r-atiie  soul  ot  a  justified 
p-rson  ;  and  -s  the  tiiorns  grow  natiiially  uitii.^ut  anj  cult:va- 
ti  )n,  even  so  this  wicked  principle  is  nuiuial  y  ui  e\eiy  man  ; 
an  I  as  the  wheat  >n!y  grows  when  ihe  ground  i^  pr(.pcri\  (ul- 
tivuted,  even  so  the  spiritual, and  h'  1}  piir;cij  le  is  not  n.ituruily 
in  th  >  heart  o   any  nian  ,  it  is  impl.itU'd  I  }"graee. 

T  li-i  new  piin  .iple  eal  ed  tlie  -p;  ii  d'.es  .lot  choose,  nor  de- 
sire :inv  thing,  but  what  is  goo  t,-  and  ho:y.  because  it  deltgi:ts 
in  the  law  oi  GofI  Althoa.;h  tiie  soul  oi  a  believer  be  brought 
into  captivity  by  «.iii.  it  eaiin;it  be  said  that  he  accoiding  to  ibe 
n '-\  man  consents  to  the  same  ;  h  n  -e  in  this  respcd  it  is  true, 
that  he  does  U'tt  sin  wiit'ujiy.  Bit  according  to  the  fle-  h,  he 
wishes  in  !  desires  t  •  sin.  Hence  it  is  erionecus  when  >oiv:Q 
m^Ml  affirm, fe.at  a  regeneratcii  person  in  noi-espeet  sins  wiiiul  y. 
Ti -y  a  Imit  he  sins,  but  not  wiliul'y.  Such  as  Sjcak  in  this 
manner,  do  not  piop.rly  understand  wherein  a  sin  consists. 
Without  a  choiee.  hence  a  will,  there  could  neither  be  a  sin, 
n»r  a  virtue.  A 'awful  choice  is  a  viitue.  and  an  unlawful 
choice  is  a  vice.  If  there  could  be  eitjier  viitue.  or  vice,  w  ith- 
out  a  free  choice,  then  an  unreasonable  bea«t  might  aUo  eidier 
be  virtuous,  or  vicious.  Bui  as  it  would  be  absurd  to  asci  ibe 
virtue,  or  vice  to  a  beast,  it  is  evident  that  ihere  can  be  no  sin 
without  a  will ;  h-nce  to  say,  that  a  n^an  sirs,  hot  not  wilti  llv, 
is  a  proposition  which  contradicts  itself:  for  it  the  choice  Ve 
taken  away,  the  idea  either  of  vice,  or  viitue  must  vanish.  To 
sin    vithout  a  w  ill.  is  the  same  as  to  say  a  man  does  not  ^In  at  all. 

The  spirit  is  opposed  to  the  llesh  ;  y("t  the  flesh  is  not  so  ea- 
sily, nor  immediately  eradicated,  'ihe  aposde  suys  'ihey  that 
are  Christ's  have  crucified  the  flesh  with  the  afl'eclions  and 
lu-ts  '  Gal.  5.24.  To  express  the  opposit  (  n  against  the  flesh, 
he  employs  the  metaphor  of  a  crucifixion  :  i  e  he  re  presents 
the  flesh  as  an  ex'^erable  malefactor,  that  is  iuuled  to  the  cross 
by  the  spirit.  To  die  on  a  cross,  is  no  -^uddcn,  but  a  lingering 
death  ;  as  crucified  persons  may  live  sun  Iry  days, beibre  they 
expire.    Let  no  one  therefore,  suppose  that  because  he  ii?.5 


I8fl 

crucified  his  fl^'sTi,  that  it  is  ah  eady  dead  :  for  whilst  snrh  an 
idea  is  chensned,  ttie  wo.  Id,  and  Satuii,  the  foes  to  the  mw 
creatuie,  may  administer  reiiei  to  the  tksh,  and  preserve  its 
life,  and  even  succeed  in  hberating  it  from  the  cross,  or  from 
the  state  of  its  crucifixion.  But  whilst  the  saint  watches  the 
fl  'sli,  which  is  his  neare^t  enemy  ;  ir  thix.ugh  the  Spirit  he 
keeps  it  perpeluaily  crucihed  ;  yet  though  it  be  not  dead  ;  yet 
is  it  \n  sucn  a  state,  tUat  it  is  slowly  dying,  and  must  necessa- 
ri«y  at  the  saint's  exit,  finally  expire. 

Again — 'Kni)wing  this,  that  our  old  man  is  crucified  with 
him,  that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyrd,  that  henceforth 
we  shouKf  not  serve  sin.'  Rom.  6  6.  By  the  body  ol  sin, 
the  apostle  cannot  mean  a  man's  natural  body  ;  because  that 
is  the  work  uanship  of  God,  and  though  it  must  die  ;  yet  it 
shall  rise  again  It  is  pecuhar  to  the  apostle's  style,  to  call 
t!iat  ivhich  is  composed  of  several  members,  a  body.  Thus 
he  calls  the  church  a  bodj',  because  it  is  composed  of  many 
members.  A  body  o!  sin  musttherefore,  consist  of  many  mem- 
bers ;  it  is  a  olose  combination  of  ah  vices.  Thus  when 
pride,  angf'r,  idolatry,  falsehood,  envy,  tyratmy,  hatred,  mal- 
ice, covetousne:-s,  &c.  are  linke  I  together  to  obtain  a  carnal 
en  I,  there  is  a  bo  ly  of  sin,  vviich  contradicts  divine  holiness, 
justice,  wisdom,  goodness, and  truth;  hence  it  is  something 
unclean,  unreasonable,  foolish,  huilfu!,  and  lying.  Whilst  sin 
is  in  a  body,  it  is  powerful,  and  the  creature  is  necessarily  sub- 
ject to  its  doMiinion  But  in  a  regenerated  person  the  Spirit 
has  destroyed  th^*  connexi  n,  which  vices  naturally  have  w  ith 
each  other  ;  hence  the  body  is  dissolved.  It  being  dissolve  d, 
t'i.>  creature  is  not  un  ler  the  neccssiiy  of  serving  sin.  But  as 
O'dy  the  body  of  sin  is  destroyed,  are  yet  the  several  members^ 
th  tusJ^h  dislocated,  in  existence.  Hence  the  regenerated  per- 
son i-^  not  a  slave  to  sin  ;  but  yet,  is  he  not  entii-ely  destitute  of 
it.  Herein  consists  the  difference  between  the  worldling,  and 
the  child  of  God  :  the  former  is  a  slave  to  sin,  the  scope  o.  his 
inind,  is  to  do  that  which  is  vicious  ;  but  the  latter  is  no  slave 
to  -^In,  the  body  of  sin  does  not  reign  in  him  ;  but  only  its  dis- 
located  membei-s  move  in  him,  and  tempt  him  to  do  evil. 

Although  the  saint  according  to  the  new  man,  is  no  sinner  5 
yet  is  it  a  most  pernicious  doctrine  v\  hich  some  men  teach,  viz ; 
th  it  a  s:iint  can.  and  must  become  so  perfect,  that  he  neither 
fee's,  no\*  does  any  sin  They  frequently  produce  sundry 
texts,  which  repiesent  the  saint  as  perfect,  and  holy  ;  and 
when  they  have  done  this,  thev  imagine  their  doctrine  is  irre- 
fr;i!>ably  estab|i>^hed  All  those  texts  prove  that  men,  in  so 
far  iis  they  are  saints  :  i,  e.  according  to  the  spirit,  are  witb^ 


181 

out  sin  ;  but  they  do  not  prove,  that  there  is  no  flesh  in  the 
p:ison  oi  ii  believer.  The  texts  wliicli  are  ahead^  quoiec., 
shew  that  there  lb  the  flesD,  and  the  spirit  in  every  believer. 

Christ  is  an  advocate  vvitli  the  Father  tor  the  biiieveis, 
1  John  2,  1  But  if  tiiey  in  all  respects  were  without  sin, 
why  would  they  need  Christ's  advoeacy  ?  Such  tliere.oie 
who  teach  that  a  believer  is  without  sn,  must  deny  thu  Christ 
is  an  intercessor  tor  his  people.  Nevertheless,  sime  in  older 
to  escape  this  charge,  have  recourse  to  this  shift  :  viz.  that 
thoufj;h  there  be  nothing  criminal  in  a  Chi  isiian  ;  }et  there  aie 
sundry  imperfections  in  his  nature,  which  would  not  enoure 
the  strict  sruiiny  of  the  perteet  law  of  GotI,  v.  huh  renders 
the  a  Iv  )cacy  of  Christ  necessary.  What  a  glaring  ronuatiic- 
tion  !  Can  they  not  see  that  whatever  does  not  endure  the 
strict  scrutiny  of  the  law,  is  contrary  to  it  ;  and  v\  liat  is  con- 
trary to  it,  must  be  a  sm  ?  for  sin  is  the  transgression  ol  the 
law.  If  those  imperfectit*ns  of  v\  hich  they  ^plak.,  are  not 
criminal,  what  a  burlesque  it  would  be  to  suppose  Chris  to 
plead  for  such  I  Christ  is  to  intercede  ibr  imjierfeciions,  w  hich 
are  not  criminal,  hence  for  innocence  !  What  an  absurdity  ! 
Those  proud,  self  important  hypocrites,  who  vainly  dieam  of 
being  perfect,  and  without  sin  would  rather  either  deny  the 
intercession  of  Christ  ;  or  suppose  w  hich  is  the  most  absurd, 
that  he  pleads  for  what  they  wickedly  call  innocent  failings, 
than  they  would  own  themselves  as  vile  sinners.  They  know 
that  they  sometimes  manifest  anger,  impatience,  impertinent 
words,  &c.  but  as  they  are  determined  to  maintain  the  idea, 
that  they  feel  no  more  sin,  and  are  perfect,  they  justify  them- 
selves, saying,  we  know  that  we  have  some  little  tailings,  but 
we  do  not  count  them  properly  sins  ;  hence  not  criminal,  nor 
damnable.  O  generation  of  vipers  !  how  will  ye  escape  the 
damnation  of  hell  !  when  ye  deny  your  sins  to  be  sins  ;  w  hen 
ye  rail  that  innocent,  which  is  criminal, and  mock  Christ  as;.n 
intercessor,  in  that  ye  will  have  him  to  intercede  ibr  innocent 
imperfertions  ! ! 

If  a  believer  were  without  sin,  his  nature  would  be  tho- 
roughly  sanctified,  and  he  would  be  altogether  spiritual.  Now 
that  whi  h  is  born  of  that  which  is  spiritual,  is  also  spiritual; 
for  like  engenders  hke  ;  hence  if  believ«Ts  were  thus  sanctifi- 
e  I,  the  chi'dren  they  would  beget,  would  also  be  holy  and  in- 
nort^nt.  But  is  this  the  case  ?  No.  Their  children  are  sin- 
ners.    This  plainly  shews  that  their  nature  is  yet  sinful. 

All  brlievers  must  die.  But  why  "^  The  apostle  says  'If 
Christ  be  in  you,  the  body  is  dead  b'-eause  of  sin  :  but  the 
spirit  is  life  because  of  righteousness.'    jRoni,  8,  10.    Because 


182 

of  sin  the  bidy  is  dead  ;  hence  as  believers  die,  it  is  evident 
that  they  are  sinners. 

B^liev«n's  are  co;nm m  led  to  pray,  and  particularly  in  the 
L>rd's  prayer  :  'forgive  us  our  trespasses'  They  also  by  piay- 
er  withstand  the  motions  of  the  tlesh.  But  what  ti)lly  it  wuud 
be,  for  an  uiuocent;,  perfect  creature,  to  pray  frr  ,orgiveiu"^s  ; 
for  divine  assistance  against  tiie  vile  temptations  ol  the  flesh  I 
When  such  nen.  who  profess  lo  be  without  sin.  pray  for  par- 
don, they  m  >ck  Gjd  ;  because  a  being  who  is  witlioui  sia 
needs  no  pardon, 

IMPROVEMENT. 


Since  the  scriptures  shew  that  in  a  believer  sin,  or  the  flesh,  is 
3'et  to  be  found,  as  well  as  the  new  spirit,  theic  i-  no  difticultj 
in  harm  )uizing  the  diverse  texts  which  represent  hmi  as  bring 
"without  sin,  and  yet  being  a  sinner  ;  becau-e  both  are  verifi- 
ed in  the  same  person.  In  a  believer  darkness,  and  light  are 
conten  ling  for  vict  )ry  ;  and  if  he  persevere  in  striving  aga  nst 
the  flesh,  light  shall  conquer,  and  he  be  crowned  with  heaven- 
ly diadems. 

To  teach  that  a  believer  may  live  without  sin  during  his  sub- 
lunary abode,  is  baneful,  because  such  as  believe  it,  and  be- 
lieve they  are  perfect,  will  n  -t  bdow  after  holiness,  and  with 
them  repentance  js  out  of  the  question  ;  for  u  hat  need  they  to 
follow  after  holiness,  when  they  are  already  perfect  ?  and  why 
should  they  repent,  when  they  are  no  sinners  ?  It  is  calcula- 
ted to  lead  to  a  direct  denial  of  the  office  of  Christ's  interces- 
sion :  for  what  need  would  there  be  to  plead  for  the  innocL*nt  ? 
Whatever  doctrine  sets  aside  any  of  Christ's  offices,  is  wick- 
ed and  A.ntichristian 

Nothi  )g  is  calculated  to  hu\?)ble  a  s?int  more,  than  a  lively 
sense  of  his  natural  corrupti  in  which  remains  in  him.  Thcuiih 
he  may  be  assured  t'lat  he  is  justified,  and  adopted  as  a  child, 
and  heir  of  God  ;  yet  this  high, and  glorious  state,  in  the  midst 
of  a  wick 'd  worlrl.does  not  elate  him  with  ptMde:  for  he  must 
yet  daily  feel  the  wicked  tlesh  moving  in  his  -oul,  and  wove  it 
not  for  the  H  dy  Gh  )st,  crying  in  the  heart  Abba'  or  Father! 
to  prevent  him,  w  m\\  perpetrate  the  blackest  crimes.  Or 
were  it  n)tfor  the  higii  priestly  prayers  of  Jesus.  Satan  would 
sift  him,  that  his  faith  wou'd  fail,  and  he  bethru^Jt  into  despera- 
tion. This  prevents  him  from  thanking  God  that  he  is  so  far 
superior  in  h  diness  to  others:  he  is  not  Ike  the  silly,  proud 
fools,  who  never  enter  into  themselves  to  discover  their  owB 


18f) 

filth ;  biit  are  constantly  whining  about  the  wickedness  of  other 
people. 

Tacre  aiT  many  chiUiren  of  God,  who  are  frtquer.tly  seized 
with  drciiiiiul  .cars  ;  bicau.-e  a  though  thiy  do  ti.tn  lltmo^t  to 
eradicate  sin,  by  watchuig  o\er  tlimseAeSj  and  jia\iLgior 
succour  ;  yet  du  duy  not  see  ihat  ihc)  get  need  hm  ml, yea 
it  often  appc-ars  as  if  it  only  abouniled  the  niore.  Lut  u  luist 
they  think  that  no  one  can  be  a  ci.ild  oi  Ood^as  long  as>  he  teels 
sinful  corruptions,  their  ieurs  v\ill  not  vaMsh.  But  let  such 
consiiier:  that  tlie  deeper  root  sanciificatitn  lakes  in  the  heart, 
the  more  the  light  of  the  Spirit  increases;  and  the  moieiliat 
increases,  the  more  ot  the  wicked,  mbied  corruptii  n  will  be 
discovered.  Sin  is  not  as  st:  cng  in  them,  as  It  w  as  befoi  e  ;  but 
only  'he  lively  view  of  it  n;aKes  it  appear  as  it  they  (.id  not  in- 
crease  in  sanctities tion  ;  and  as  an  enem}  never  lights  harder 
than  when  he  is  violently  opposed  ;  even  so  we  need  not  think 
it  sti-an:j:e,  that  when  we  through  the  spirit  assail  the  fiesh,thafe 
it  -houl  I  not  coliect  all  its  powers  tor  so  important  a  ct-ntest, 
to  staiggle  for  life,  and  attempt  to  alarm  the  new  creature* 
The  soul  that  feels  no  more  sin,  is  full  of  darkness,  and  has 
ma.le  a  league  with  the  enemy.  When  those  terrihed  be- 
lievers compare  themselves  with  the  per;ect  law  oi  Gud,  they 
discover  so  many  defects  in  themselves,  that  they  hear  its  loud 
thunders  of  damnation  ;  whilst  they  are  impugned  by  Satan, 
■who  whispers  to  them  :  ''if  ye  were  saints,  ye  would  teel  no 
?in  :  for  how  can  sin  dv\ell  in  a  holy  person  ;  if  ye  VAcre 
heirs  of  heaven,  ye  should  never  be  disturbed,  but  would  al- 
ways abound  with  felicity  ;  hence  it  is  evident  ye  are  forsa- 
ken of  God.  in  whom  ye  vainly  attempt  to  contide  !"  But  let 
such  souls  be  c omforted.  Let  them  make  an  able  defence* 
Let  them  say  O  good  and  hoy  law  !  we  con  ess  that  we  are 
giii'ty,  and  if  we  could  no;  enter  a  vali  i  plea  ag  in>t  thy  de- 
mands, we  would  have  to  despair. —  But  look  O  righteous  law! 
on  mount  Calvary  thereunder  thy  sentence,  the  filaii  Godhead 
inea-  nate,  groaned,  bled,  and  expired,  to  redeem  us,  thy  de- 
mands were  amply  satisfied  ;  therefore  it  thou  wilt  not  ctasc 
to  condemn  u-;,  we  will  arraign  thee  for  demanding  n'Orc 
than  what  is  ju'^t  :  for  is  it  not  sufheient.  that  we  were  once 
puni-hed  in  the  person  of  Christ  ?  Further —  O  law  !  behold  at; 
the  right  of  the  Father,  sits  Jesus  our  advocate  ;  deny  and 
make  void  if  thou  canst  his  all  powerful  mediatorial  plea  ;  and 
th'  n  thou  mayest  condemn,  and  hurl  us  into  perdition  ;  but 
whilst  thy  justice  cannot  deny  this  plea,  thou  must  leave  us  in 
heavenly  security.  And  as  for  thee  O  Satan  !  thou  accusest 
us  in  vain  ;  thy  suggestion  is  false  :  for  thou  thyseU*  art  the 


184 

prototype  of  all  s'nners  anrl  lies  ;  thou  art  an  out-law  ;  hast 
been  hurled  iroru  lieav<n,  and  condemned  hy  divme ju^iice, 
to  suffer  eternal  damnation.  li'  sin  did  not  dwell  in  us  \\  hilst 
we  are  in  this  world,  we  should  not  live  by  taith  in  Chnst  ; 
but  by  thi*  dee  !s  otthe  law ,  henee  by  our  own  righteou-ness  : 
thus  it  is  n  )t  inconsistent  tor  sin  to  be  in  such  a  saint,  who  daiiy 
lives  by  a  Saviour. 

Uiider  h2avy  temptations  the  believer  is  frequently  not  able 
to  p;ay  with  words  ;  yet  thf  pledge  of  his  adoption,  tht  Holy 
Ghost,  cries  in  hi-  h^art  Abba,  Father.  Likewise  the  8j)i- 
rit  also  heljie  h  uur  intimities  :  ior  we  know  not  what  we 
shoul  I  priiy  lor  as  wi*  ought  :  but  the  Spirit  itself  maketh  in- 
tercession for  us  with  uroanings  which  cannot  be  uttered/ 
Rom.  8,  i6.  L  t  the  afflicted  soul  cNamine  himself,  whether 
there  be  not  a  latent  desire,  an  almost  unfelt  pantmg  after 
God,  a  wish  for  his  assistuncc,  and  for  the  smiles  of  his  coun- 
tt  nance  :  f'>r  snch  a  silent  interna]  panting,  is  the  most  eff<  ctu- 
al  cry  of  the  H  dy  Ghost  in  behalf  of  the  believer  ;  and  Ci< 
cero.  and  D  "inosthenes,  could  not  rival  its  eloquence.  O  my 
soul  !  though  assailed  by  terrors  within,  and  temptations  and 
p-^rsecution  without  ;  yet  whilst  this  jiraying  desire  is  in  thee, 
tliou  hast  the  Hoy  Giiost,  the  pledge  and  witness  of  thine  a- 
doption, 

T  le  believer's  life  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God.  Col.  g,  3, 
Though  they  live  in  this  world  ;  yet  as  the  apostle  says  ^our 
conversation  is  in  he;iven  ;  from  whence  also  we  look  for  the 
Saviour,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ '  Phil,  g,  20.  It  is  a  life 
bv  faith  ;  and  so  it  must  needs  be  whilst  they  dwell  in  the 
body  :  but  as  soon  as  the  body  returns  to  dust,  the  soul  will  be 
in  a  glorious  vision,  and  emancipated  from  all  spiritual  foes  } 
and  on  the  last  day  the  body  shall  be  laised.  immortal,  and 
full  of  felicitv.  *A.s  tor  me,  I  will  behold  thy  face  in  right- 
eousness :  I  shiM  be  satisfied,  when  I  awake,  with  thy  like- 
ness.    Ps.    17,  15. 


FRAGMENT  VIIL 

The  use  of  the  Law. 

Whereas  it  has  been  frequently  shewn  that  no  man  is  justi- 
fied by  the  Iaw%  the  question  may  be  put  :  what  is  tln'  use  of 
it?        St,  Paul  fuinisiies  us  with  the  answer:   *1  had  not 


185 

known  sin.  but  by  the  law  :  for  I  had  not  known  lust,  except 
the  law  had  said.  Thou  shalt  not  coveu'  Horn.  7,  7 — and  v* 
13 —  But  sin,  ihat  it  might  appear  sin,  working  death  in  me 
by  that  which  is  good  ;  that  sm  by  tlie  commandnient  might 
become  exceeding  sinful.'  This  shew  s  that  ue  would  not  dis- 
cover our  depravity,  without  the  law  ;  and  without  this  discov- 
ery,  we  should  not  know  the  necessity  of  a  Saviour  ;  and. 
%vithout  that,  we  shouid  never  believe  :  hem-e  the  apostle  pro- 
perly concludes,  that  the  law  was  our  schoolmaster  to  bring 
us  to  Christ.  Gal.  3,  24.  This  is  the  use  of  the  law,  before 
a  man  is  justified. 

The  scriptures  teach  that  'af'ter  faith  is  come,  we  are  no 
longer  untler  a  schoolmaster' — Gal.  §,  2*5 — that  'Christ  is  the 
end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to  every  one  that  believeth.' 
Rom.  10,  4.  See  also  ch.  7,1-6.  Thus  at  the  first  view  it 
might  appear,  as  if  the  law  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  believ- 
er, as  if  it  were  of  no  use  to  him.  It  is  evident  that  the  be- 
liever is  not  under  the  law  ;  so  that  it  can  be  the  least  bondage 
to  him  ;  it  has  lost  its  power  to  condemn  him  ;  he  does  not 
live  by  it,  an;l  it  cannot  reign  with  an  absolute  sway  in  his 
conscience.  Thus  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteous- 
ness :  i.  e.  as  it  respects  righteousness  and  life,  tl)e  law  is  at 
an  end  :  for  Christ  is  the  believer's  perfect  rightcous^ness. 
But  as  by  the  gospel  the  Holy  Spirit  is  brought  into  the  heart, 
the  law  again  is  established  :  i.  e.  the  law  is  written  upon  the 
heart  :  -For  this  is  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  the 
house  of  Israel  after  those  days,  saith  the  Lord;  I  will  put  my 
laws  into  their  mind,  and  write  them  in  their  hearts  :  and  I 
V  ill  be  to  them  a  God,  and  they  shall  be  to  me  a  people,' 
Heb.  8,  10.  See  Rom  8,  4.  Gal.  3,  21.  The  sinner  be- 
fore he  was  justified  had  the  same  law,  but  he  could  not  write 
it  into  his  heart :  i.  e.  he  could  have  no  free  will  to  love  it  ; 
hence  he  must  have  been  in  bondage.  But  after  he  is  justi- 
fied, the  law  by  the  Lord  himself,  is  v^  ritten  into  his  heart :  i.  e. 
he  now  delights  in  it  ;  hence  in  him,  it  is  a  living,  moving 
rule  of  his  life,  and  conversati)n  :  and  if  it  were  not  for  his 
fle^h,  he  would  never  transgress  it.  All  the  moral  precepts  of 
the  law,  concentrate  in  Love  ;  hence  it  is  morally  impossible 
for  any  creature  to  be  released  from  its  obligations.  Hence  as 
the  believer  for  Christ's  sake  is  justified,  and  viewed  innocent, 
he  is  on'y  under  the  law,  like  a  creature  of  God,  that  never 
had  transgressed.  Now  there  is  a  very  great  difference,  be- 
tween being  under  the  law  as  an  innocent  creature,  and  being 
under  it  as  guilty.  The  innocent  creature  does  not  tear  the 
law  J  whilst  the  guilty  is  in  the  most  servile  bondage,     Christ 


186 

aid  not  by  the  work  of  his  redemption  destroy  the  relation, 
whii.rh  CI-  -atures  have  towards  their  creator ;  but  that  which 
sinners  sustained  t.»vvards  God,  as  a  judge,  A  man  before  and 
after  his  jus  iBcationisG.)ci's  creature,  and  as  such,  his  relation 
towards  G  )d,  is  not  altered  by  the  redemption  of  Christ.  But 
a  nan's  lelation  towards  God,  as  a.sinner,  is  such  as  to  be 
under  r^mdeiTination  by  the  law.  This  relation  is  destroyed^ 
when  he  is  justified,  and  the  condemning  office  of  the  law  cea- 
ses ;  because  it  must  view  the  sinner  as  an  innocent  creature; 
notwithstanding  the  many  imperfections,  which  are  occasioned 
by  the  flesh,  because  Jtsus  ren^ains  his  advocate. 

"  Til  "re  is  also  a  civil  use  of  the  law.      it  is  to  bridle  the  un- 
ruly, &c,     See  1  Tim.  1,  8  - 10* 


F  I  H  I  fe 


187 


REVISAL,  ^c. 


The  following  inaccuracies,  and  errors  which  the  author  discovered  ip 
thU  wok,  as  fj;  as  he  has  i  ead  it  since  it  is  piintetl    are  heieby  conected  : 

In  the  pr  face  ;  Written  in  Jefferson  county,  Kentucky,  in  the  month 
o*"  June,  1825.'  When  I  co.umenced  this  work,  I  wa^  in  Kentucky,  and 
contem  )lated  to  have  tinishel  it  in  the  month  of  June,  1825;  but  as  the 
Wi).  k  is  much  la  <^er,  than  '  expected  it  to  be.  I  must  obsei  ve  that  it  was 
nut  all  written  n  that  time,  noi"  in  the  state  of  Kentuckv.  Thisciay,  which, 
is  the  29th  0*  June,  182G,  I  fin  shed  this  woik. 

Page  3,  in-tead  o(  j  edic  ./>.*,  in  the  29lh  line  from  the  bottom,  read  ridi 
culoui.  P  i,  line  20th  from  the  top,  instead  of  syn-nim  u:,  i ead* si/«o«i/- 
mo  ts  P.  7  line  21  st  from  the  top,  instead  of  coudict.  r.  6  ndu'tt — P.  8,  Ist 
line,  instead  of  (/eiCfwfc^,  r  deacnded — p  14.  1.  12th  instead  of  rfi*c/ z/j?jl'w 
T.  decriptiin  —p  15  1  8ih,  loi  ge^.e-ote  r  xepuiale  —  p.  17,1.  2d,  from  the 
bo.  om.  for  we  e  r.  wa.i — p  27,  the  Hebtew  name  El  Soon,  is  v^Tong,  it 
ough'  to  be  ,':/  J  ion  —and  line  20th  f'-om  the  bottom,  instead  of  immutua/  v. 
imm  dable — p.  28  line  15  h  from  the  top  fov  en  oninusr.  enoneui — p,  32> 
1.  8th  for  de'nean£i  r.  demeanour,  or  d  meanor — p.  34,  1.  3d  from  the  bot- 
tom, for  pr  'pe^ati^in  r,  prapagition — p.  35  1.  16th  from  the  top,  toi  an- 
swers r.  an  we- — same  p.  I  37 '.h  for  subter.  anions  r.  subtei  ranema — and 
for  jewiT  Jewi — p.  36,  I  6th  for  fini/ad  r.  vine  laid  ~  smd  1  27th.  foi  in- 
atantanio  (.%' y  r.  ins'ant me  asly — and  1  36th.  for  charactei i  es  r.  chai'icler- 
izci —p  39,  3d  1.  omit  ih  -  '  and  sub.^titute  a  ,  <ir  ;  — and  I  9th  for  mines- 
^ry  r  minist,  y—p  40  1,  29. h,  befoie  the  word  punitive  insert  the  art  cle  a — 
p  41,  I.  10th,  foi  miiterious  r.  rm  teious — p.  42  9th  1.  trom  the  botiom,  for 
di  troy  r.  destroy —p.  45,  1.  15th  from  the  top,  for  carnel  r.  carnal — and  1. 
21st.  for  spi-e  r.  spire — p.  46,  1,  7th,  for  say  r.  saua—p-  51,  1.  24lh,  for  A- 
chaid  r.  Achaia.  P  52  the  phra'e  ['having  just  befoie  quoted  a  few  passa- 
ge:- of  scripture  which  speak  of  regenerati.;n  |  occurs,  to  which  must  be  ad- 
ded and  of  increannr  in  sanclification.  Page  56,  line  10th  from  the  bot- 
tom for  dispuches  r.  dispu'ckes — p.  60,  1.  5th  f'  om  *he  top  for  cause  r  means 
.—p.  64,  1.  6'h,  for  pianest  r.  plainest — p.  72,  1.  \\\.\\,  for  prote.itand  r.  pro- 
tectant —p.  76.  27th  line  for  ever  r.  e'-en — p.  79  lo3d,  for  braking  r.  break- 
in  J-  -and  1.  23d  for  parcaining  r   pertaininz- 

Paie91,  >t  is  said  'Accoiding  to  the  idiom  of  the  G'-eek  language,  two, 
do  not  amount  to  i  plural  number.  There  ai«  ihiee  numbers  .  the  singu- 
lar, the  dual,  and  the  plural.  The  singular  expresses  one  ;  the  dual  two; 
and  the  plural,  any  number  above  two  ;  so  that  nothing  less  than  three,  can 
be  phnal  The  text  has  baptism-  n.  the  genitive  case,  and  plural  number. 
Bapti.m  in,  is  dual  ;  hence  expresses  two  baptisms,  &.C.'  But  I  must  here 
observe  .  that  although  the  dual  number  belongs  to  the  precision  of  the 
Greek  lani^jua^e,  and  though  it  be  stiictly  grammatical,  not  to  express  any 
number  le.,s  than  three,  by  a  plural  termination  ;  vet  after  examining  sun- 
dry texts  in  the  '^ew  Testament,  in  which  two  things  are  expressed,  I  found 
the  words  not  to  be  of  a  dual,  but  of  a  pluial  tei  miiK^ion.  f  had  no  time  to 
examine  all  the  texts  on  the  subject,  but  as  the  'oodly  number  which  I  did 
examine  ha'  e  not  the  dual  termination,  I  am  induceil  to  believe  that  it  does 
not  at  al!  occur-  in  the  new  testament.  Hence  what  is  said  wiih  respect  to 
the  dual  number,  and  wha'  is  infcred  uom  it  in  the  aforesaid  page,  is  here» 
by  revoked.    The  argmnent  stands  independent  91  this  criticism. 


18S 

Pa»e  93,  1.  8th  from  the  bcttom,  for  Pariians  w  Partktans.  Page  95— 
In  my  comment  on  Act-  ch.  2,  38,  I  said  that  the  gifts  ot  the  Holy  Ghost, 
which  the  Jews  received  upon  their  i-epentaiice,  and  after  beinr  b  piised 
weve  miraculous.  This  is  strictly  true,  because  the  miraculous  gifts  were 
jjeculiar  to  the  ag;e  ot  the  primitive  apostles  ot  Christ.  The  text  says  'Re- 
pent and  be  baptised,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  for  the  rem  ^siou  of 
sin,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  f^ift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  Now  the  gift  of  the 
Spirit  succeeds  repen;.auce,  and  the  remission  for  sin.  He  that  has  the  le- 
mission  ibr  sin  is  justified  ;  hence  aUhough  the  gilts  of  the  Spirit  promised 
to  the  Jews  were  miraculous  ;  yet  it  is  also  evident  from  other  texts,  that 
aflera  sinner  is  ju«titied  by  faith,  the  common,  sanctifying  gilts  of  the  Spirit 
are  implanted  in  the  heart,  to  sanctify,  and  cleanse  it  trom  the  inbi  ed  corrup- 
tions. Hence  the  gilt  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  the  Jews  received  after 
baptism,  were  not  those  by  which  they  were  justified  :  whether  they  were 
mil  aculous  or  ordinary  sanclilying  gifts;  because  they  previously  had  the 
remission  ibrsin,  hence  were  justified. 

Page-97 .  in  the  note,  1.  17th,  from  the  bottom,  for  \ircumspectly  r.  circum- 
spect/y — p.  101,  1  2  1,  foi'  green  of  heaven  r.  queen  of  heaven,  P  111  the 
expression  'It  unlocks  the  t^ates  ol  paiadise,  and  exalts  the  sinnei  out  of 
hell  into  heaven,  '  occurs.  Lest  it  be  misconstrued,  I  shall  qualify  its  mea^ 
ning  ;  viz  -bii  Ihe  gospel  Ike  s,nner  is  translated  from  a  state  of  cnuem- 
nation,  into  a  state  of  salvation.' 

f:^  There  have  only  been  112  pages  of  this  work  forwar-ied  by  mail; 
hence  i  could  only  revise  so  much  of  it.  Whatever  errors  or  inaccuracies  may 
occur  in  the  remaining  past.,  I  request  my  nephew,  the  e<;iioi  to  note  in  this 
catalogue  ;  as  I  may  not  have  the  ojiportunity  to  do  it  my-elf.  before  the 
work  shall  be  ready  to  be  delivered  to  the  publick  There  are  also  a  tew  er- 
rors that  are  not  important,  and  sundry  inaccuracies  with  respect  to  punctu- 
ation, which  aie  not  noticed  :n  this  catalogue,  which  the  judicious  reader 
will  plea.se  correct  himself. 

Page  1 IC,  1.  10th,  from  the  bottom,  for  infeligent  r.  intelligent — p  119, 1. 
13lh.  foro  the  top,  for  he  r  the — p.  126, 1.  ITth,  from  the  bottom,  for  if\  If 
— p  139,  1.  lOlh,  from  the  bottom,  for  in  r.  into — p  152,  1.  Isl,  on  the  bot- 
tom, for  ai'il  r.  avail — p.  171,  I,  2d,  from  the  bottom,  for  iinlesr.  unless — 
same  page,  1  -tfh,  f-om  the  bottom,  for  eliction  r  election — p.  174,  1.  3d, 
from  the  top  foi-  hinucfi.  himself — same  page,  1,  13th,  from  the  top,  (or  pre- 
rentet  r.  pi  evented- 


/^  ')f^/< 


^ 


s^g 


ivS;^ 


«m 


'.i^i^ 


^jt^. 


